Historians v revisionists, methodology.

[Nessie]

Bombsaway has a better understanding;

viewtopic.php?p=23137#p23137

What would undermine the narrative process was that if they said the pellets were dropped through the roof without the use of columns, or they all landed on the floor and were swept up each time. This kind of discrepancy doesn't exist. When this was brought up earlier my take was that a small amount of pellets were strewn on the floor, not enough to seriously endanger anyone's life or keep HCN levels high. Why couldn't this be possible? Why must the only explanation be liewitnesses?

There were 8 gas chambers at A-B. Only 2 had Kula columns. Witnesses such as Mueller and Tauber worked at more than one gas chamber. They could just be getting mixed up. Revisionists are wrong to discount all the commonly made witness errors and go straight to lying as the explanation.

[Keen]

That is why, if Holocaust revisionists want to be taken seriously as historical revisionists, when they claim no crime was committed, the burden of proof is on them to prove no crime was committed. They could do that by proving millions of Jews left the AR camps, Chelmno and A-B, who were still alive in the camps and ghettos in 1944 and were liberated in 1945.

It is a logical fallacy to allege that it has to be proven that the jews that are alleged to have been murdered and buried in the AR camps were still alive later during or after the war in order to prove that they were not murdered and buried in the camps. Such red herrings are spewed by cowardly retards like reberto as a distraction from the fact that they have failed their burden of proof.

We know, with 100% certainty, that the alleged "pure extermination center" hoax did not happen as alleged in orthodox histriography because of the following fact:

If the physical evidence for an alleged crime that - HAS TO EXIST - for the crime to have

actually happened - DOES NOT EXIST - then the alleged crime obviously - DID NOT HAPPEN.

Ergo: The orthodox “pure extermination center” story is - A PROVEN, NONSENSICAL BIG-LIE.

[Keen]

I will use TII as an example. A historian would prove that mass gassing at TII was a myth, by gathering evidence from people who worked there, documents pertaining to the camp, geophysical, other physical and circumstantial evidence.

It is a logical fallacy to allege that skeptics of the official narrative have to "gather evidence from people who worked there" or "gather documents pertaining to the camp" to prove that the "pure extermination center" myth is the big-lie that it is.

As far as "geophysical" and "other physical evidence," it is the absence of such that proves that the alleged mass murders did not take place.

No mass graves = no mass murder = no mass gassings.

Simple as that.

It is no wonder that revisionists often suggest that the burden of proof is not on them

roberta:

The Nazis were not trying to magically disappear the corpses and the graves.

All the mass graves dug by the Nazis, and the corpses they cremated, are still at the AR camps.

Mass graves are proven. By all normal standards of evidencing, they are proven.

I can point to them in the ground.

[Nessie]

Archie;

viewtopic.php?p=23168#p23168

There's also the little issue that you are pretending like any sort of column counts as a match when in reality the descriptions are not very similar.

Why do you think that the dissimilarity of description of how the column looked, is evidence of lying? What do you base your belief on?

Have you got any studies of witnesses that prove when a group of witnesses describe something they all saw, if they really saw it, and they are not lying, they would all describe that something similarly?

[TlsMS93]

Nessie insists on this nonsense about the consensus argument.

So the Dancing Sun miracle happened, abductions happen.

But why would they lie? Well, isn't that right? Were they being exploited to do something abominable according to their faith and tradition, which was cremating bodies? Did revenge create a herd effect from what they heard from outside the camp and act accordingly?

And you're mistaken if you think they saw something similar.

[Nessie]

Nessie insists on this nonsense about the consensus argument.

So the Dancing Sun miracle happened, abductions happen.

But why would they lie? Well, isn't that right? Were they being exploited to do something abominable according to their faith and tradition, which was cremating bodies? Did revenge create a herd effect from what they heard from outside the camp and act accordingly?

I presume you mean corroboration, when you say consensus argument. Corroboration is the standard means by which historians and other investigators establish if a claim is verified or not. It is core to historical methodology. Revisionists are unable to provide an alternative means of investigation that is as robust and reliable.

The use of mesh columns to introduce Zyklon B pellets into Kremas II and III, is corroborated by multiple eyewitnesses and a document that refers to a mesh slide in device.

And you're mistaken if you think they saw something similar.

They all describe a metal column that Zyklon B was poured into. They just describe it in different ways, which is to be expected, as people normally, variously, remember and recall details. In the same way multiple witnesses to a mass shooting will all agree, it was a mass shooting, but they will remember and recall different details.

[Nessie]

Stubble;

viewtopic.php?p=23176#p23176

Filip Mueller also in 'eyewitness Auschwitz' later says they used water to neutralize the zyclon crystals because they were strewn about the room.

We had orders that immediately after the opening of the gas chamber we were to take away first the corpses that had tumbled out, followed by those lying behind the door, so as to clear a path. This was done by putting the loop of a leather strap round the wrist ofa corpse and then dragging the body to the lift by the strap and thence conveying it upstairs to the crematorium. When some room had been made behind the door, the corpses were hosed down. This served to neutralize any gas crystals still lying about, but mainly it was intended to clean the dead bodies. For almost all of them were wet with sweat and urine, filthy with blood and excrement, while the legs of many women were streaked with menstrual blood.

p117-Eyewitness Auschwitz

The zyclon b was all the way up to, the door...

This is the exact opposite of what we are told Kula's Columns were...

Mueller's description of the columns;

https://archive.org/details/three-years ... up?q=metal

The Zyclon B gas crystals were inserted through openings into hollow pillars made of sheet metal. They were perforated at regular intervals and inside them a spiral ran from top to bottom in order to ensure as even a distribution of the granular crystals as possible.

He does not explain how "crystals" as he calls them, ended up on the floor. He does describe them as granular and pea sized, so maybe some fell out, through the perforations?



It would be hard to ensure that the holes in the column were both big enough to get the gas out and small enough to keep the pellets in. Not knowing something and why a witness is apparently contradicting himself, is not evidence that they lied.

[TlsMS93]

No holes, no Kula columns

[Nessie]

No holes, no Kula columns

That is typical revisionist methodology. Ignore the corroborating eyewitness, circumstantial and photographic evidence of holes. Look at the destroyed chamber roofs and because you cannot see obvious holes, claim that there cannot have been Kula columns, which ignores the corroborating evidence that they existed.

[Nessie]

HansHill;

viewtopic.php?p=23182#p23182

What we are here to do, is to assess and critically analyse their claims and stress test them against reality and each other.

How do you do that? Use Kula, as your example.

[HansHill]

- Have they been demonstrated to exist?
- No. We are off to a very bad start and are dealing with an intangible representation of a wholly hypothetical instrument.

Strike 1.

- Is there a uniform, consistent description of the device that meets all major operational criteria (dispersal of pellets, retention of pellets, retrieval of pellets)?
- No. Our bad start continues to deteriorate, as key functions of the hypothetical instrument are sabotaged by conflicting depictions, rendering its core hypothetical function as practically inoperable.

Strike 2.

- Are there any fingerprints left by the device's absence?
- No. It has never been demonstrated where the fixtures and fittings to secure the device to its surrounding infrastructure is / was.

Strike 3.

- Does a critical assessment of the column's performance demonstrate competence and reliability?
- No. In clumping up the gypsum pellets into a fine mesh, the humid and moist pellets would quickly clump and become a gooey paste, retarding its own offgas and requiring physical removal from the mesh prior to any subsequent gassings, making this job more labour intensive and messy, not less.

Strike 4

- Are there any viable alternatives to disperse gas throughout the room in a more efficient manner?
- Yes. A simple and more efficient alternative would be to insert the pellets into the extant air intake duct, to allow for a smooth, safe, efficient, uniform, controllable, and consistent stream of HCN into the intended room without any of the problems associated with Kula's fake columns.

Strike 5

- Aside from it's obvious non-existence, non-efficiency, lack of consistent form & function, can the Orthodox position allow for and define falsifiability tests for the existence and operation of the Kula column?
- No. Despite all obvious and critical problems, Orthodoxy does not define any falsifiability tests for the existence and operation of the Kula columns and regards their existence with a religious fervour that sabotages any and all attempts at rationality and reason.

Strike 6,000,000

[Nessie]

- Have they been demonstrated to exist?
- No. We are off to a very bad start and are dealing with an intangible representation of a wholly hypothetical instrument.

How does the corroborating evidence from eyewitnesses, the inventory document and circumstantial evidence of holes and covers, not demonstrate columns existed? Just because you have decided not to believe the evidence, does not therefore mean there were no columns.

Strike 1.

- Is there a uniform, consistent description of the device that meets all major operational criteria (dispersal of pellets, retention of pellets, retrieval of pellets)?
- No. Our bad start continues to deteriorate, as key functions of the hypothetical instrument are sabotaged by conflicting depictions, rendering its core hypothetical function as practically inoperable.

Why do you think that when witness descriptions are not uniform, or consistent, or make sense, that is proof they lied?

Strike 2.

- Are there any fingerprints left by the device's absence?
- No. It has never been demonstrated where the fixtures and fittings to secure the device to its surrounding infrastructure is / was.

Only a small part of Krema II and none of Krema III, can be accessed, to examine the ceiling for fixtures and fittings. There is circumstantial evidence of the device's existence, from the photos showing covers on the roof and the inventory document referring to the device and wooden covers. You will dispute this, but there is also physical evidence holes were present in the roofs.

Strike 3.

- Does a critical assessment of the column's performance demonstrate competence and reliability?
- No. In clumping up the gypsum pellets into a fine mesh, the humid and moist pellets would quickly clump and become a gooey paste, retarding its own offgas and requiring physical removal from the mesh prior to any subsequent gassings, making this job more labour intensive and messy, not less.

How is your incredulity over the functionality of the columns, evidence to prove they did not exist?

Strike 4

- Are there any viable alternatives to disperse gas throughout the room in a more efficient manner?
- Yes. A simple and more efficient alternative would be to insert the pellets into the extant air intake duct, to allow for a smooth, safe, efficient, uniform, controllable, and consistent stream of HCN into the intended room without any of the problems associated with Kula's fake columns.

How is your belief that there was a more efficient way to use the Zyklon B, evidence to prove there were no columns?

Strike 5

- Aside from it's obvious non-existence, non-efficiency, lack of consistent form & function, can the Orthodox position allow for and define falsifiability tests for the existence and operation of the Kula column?
- No. Despite all obvious and critical problems, Orthodoxy does not define any falsifiability tests for the existence and operation of the Kula columns and regards their existence with a religious fervour that sabotages any and all attempts at rationality and reason.

Strike 6,000,000

"Orthodoxy" falsifies claims by gathering evidence from eyewitnesses, documents, physical and other forms of evidence. It is the same methodology used to prove something happened, that is used to disprove something happened. Something is proved to have existed, when there is corroborating evidence to prove its existence. Something is proved not to have existed, when either no evidence is found to prove its existence, or evidence is found which proves that something did not exist.

For example, an investigator checking a claim about the use of columns and the presence of a gas chamber inside the Kremas II and III, would falsify it, by tracing eyewitnesses who worked there who said there were no gassings, or columns. They would check documents for any references to the device and as far as is possible, examine the buildings for physical traces. If no traces were found in the documents or at the buildings, there is now both no evidence to back up the claim and evidence to the contrary. The history of the Kremas would now have been revised.

You are unable to falsify and revise the history of the Kremas, using the normal historical methodology, of gathering evidence to find what is and what is not evidenced to have happened. That is why you have adopted the unique to Holocaust revisionism flawed methodology you describe above.

[Keen]

Corroboration is the standard means by which historians and other investigators establish if a claim is verified or not. It is core to historical methodology.

More pathetic lies from the mentally ill pathological liar.

First, note how roberta uses a word that has more than one meaning:

cor·rob·o·ra·tion
[kəˌräbəˈrāSHən]
evidence which confirms or supports a statement, theory, or finding; confirmation:

Confirmining and supporting have two very different meanings. That is why it is such a favored word with the mentally ill HC cult members.

And notice how the pathetic liar never uses examples of how something is established as fact in a courtroom, even though the mentally ill freak pretends to be a lieyer.

The orthodox version of the fraudulently alleged "pure extermination centers" have never been and never will be proven in a U.S. courtroom, because there is no clear, credible or convincing evidence to support that unsubstantiated allegation. The fact that there is virtually no physical evidence to support said unsubstantiated allegaton cannot be overcome by the cult members, so they are left playing with word games.

Belzec, Chelmno, Ponary, Sobibor and Treblinka II are alleged murder cases that require legal methodology to establish facts, not historical methodology. That is why roberta is so terrified of debating Mr. Gerdes and why he has to hide behind his "nessie" alias and cravenly runs from her burden of proof.

The mentally ill cult member has no answer to this:

BELZEC, CHELMNO, PONARY, SOBIBOR and TREBLINKA II

Are the remains of 2.145 million Jews really buried in the 100 alleged “scientifically proven” mass graves?

(The labeling of asking this legitimate adjudicable question as “hate / antisemitic” is your first clue that they do not want you to know what the answer is.)

OPENING / FUNDAMENTAL STATEMENT OF FACT: It is alleged in orthodox historiography that; during WW II, the bodies and burnt remains of hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of Jews were buried in numerous “huge mass graves” at Belzec, Chelmno, Ponary, Sobibor and Treblinka II. However, despite all the deceptive, unsubstantiated allegations to the contrary, the truth is, the largest (in terms of quantity of remains) of the 100 graves in question that are fraudulently alleged to have been “scientifically proven” to currently exist at these five sites, in which verified human remains have been uncovered / tangibly located via bona fide, verifiably honest and conclusively documented archaeology, contained the remains of - ONLY SIX PEOPLE.

Note: Using the information presented on this website and applying legal standards used in U.S. courts, the above opening / fundamental statement of fact, which is written as, and can be defined as - a rebuttable presumption - can be - LEGALLY - ACCEPTED - AS - TRUE - in a U.S. court.

Foundational legal question: Is it reasonable to doubt that the remains of 2.145 million Jews are currently buried in the 100 specifically identified locations in question - Yes. - or - No. - ??

Foundational legal principles that easily expose this transparent archaeological hoax: BURDEN OF PRODUCTION, BURDEN OF PERSUASION & BURDEN OF PROOF.

http://thisisaboutscience.com/

[Keen]

Something is proved to have existed, when there is corroborating evidence to prove its existence. Something is proved not to have existed, when either no evidence is found to prove its existence, or evidence is found which proves that something did not exist.

There is virtually zero physical evidence and there is literally no clear, convincing or credible evidence for the alleged murder and burial of 2.145 million jews and tens of thousands of non-jews in the 100 fraudulently alleged "huge mass graves" of Belzec, Chelmno, Ponary, Sobibor and Treblinka II.

“HUGE MASS GRAVES”

are easily identifiable physical entities.

I refuse to believe in the existence of any

physical entity that I am not allowed to see.

If you want me to believe, then simply:

Show me that which you allege I deny.

[Nessie]

Archie joins HansHill in arguing that because he cannot work out how the Kula columns could have functioned, based on the various witness descriptions, that is evidence to prove the witnesses lied and there were no such columns;

viewtopic.php?p=23202#p23202

If you believe in the removable can, then the pellets should have stayed in the can. If the pellets were outside the can, then the can would serve no purpose. The whole point of the can is pellet removal. Maybe a few pellets would spill out of the can, but how many pellets do you really think are getting out of the can AND through three layers of wire mesh? Come on. That would be extremely rare. The most natural reading of that statement is that the guy was imagining a column that was totally open at the bottom and was not considering pellet removal at all.

Bombsaway points out problems with their arguments;

...essentially the witness was unclear about this aspect in his description and you are jumping to the worst possible interpretation - that he was describing an impossible mechanism.

I find your complaints to be highly illogical...

It will not be long before bombsaway is censored by being quarantined, as he challenges the form of argument the revisionists are making.

Historians gather evidence to find out what happened. Revisionists deny that evidence claiming it is too improbable to believe.