Comments on other threads.

[Keen]

I have Keen on ignore due

to the fact that you are a cornered rat



that lacks the intelligence, courage, integrity and character to even attempt to defend your unsubstantiated allegations in a debate.

[Keen]

Fellas? Would we support and encourage Nessie in writing this essay?

Why not just a rebuttable presumption?

It would save the agony of having to read his sophomoric drivel, which would be filled with unsubstantiated allegations ad nauseam.

[Archie]

Why don't you write a followup essay about this, it would be fascinating. I'm sure Archie would sticky it front and center on the forum.

I'll pin to this subforum. That seems like the right amount of attention. I wouldn't want to be accused of "straw-manning" by promoting Nessie's embarrassing theories too enthusiastically.

[Nessie]

Why don't you write a followup essay about this, it would be fascinating. I'm sure Archie would sticky it front and center on the forum.

Your essay can address for example:

- The factors that determine the formation of Prussian Blue
- The concentrations and exposure times required to ensure PB formation at the Kremas
- Analyses of where Prussian Blue has been documented in other locations (eg the fumigation chambers, Meussen's soil samples, the Bavarian churches etc)
- The longevity of Prussian Blue once formed

(A lot of the heavy lifting has been done for you here, and you will get most if not all of your information from Germar Rudolf)

Exactly, if exposure was similar to that used for delousing, then it would be expected that PB forms. The lower levels used for gassings, that formation is less likely, but, with a gas chamber in use for two years, it MAY have started to form in small patches. PB does not appear overnight, in obvious blue, it forms gradually.

You can then continue and explain:

- Why Richard Green, Robert Jan Van Pelt and Josef Bailer were wrong to assert why Prussian Blue is categorically not able to form in the Kremas
- Why Markiewicz was wrong to omit it from his analysis

I am not saying they were wrong. All of the discussion about PB amongst so-called revisionists is hypothetical, since it ignores the evidence of usage. The whole debate is about possibilities. Either, PB could not form (suggested by Green etc), or slight traces may have appeared in some of the chambers (my suggestion), or they should have had obvious traces (the so-called revisionist position). PB formation is not instantaneous, so my suggestion covers the part where it is just becoming apparent, in the early stages of formation. That may not have happened until the very end of the use of the chambers, since the exposure was over shorter times and at lower levels than in the delousing chambers. In other words, PB would show signs of forming in delousing situations, sooner, than in gassings.

- What happened to those pesky blue bricks that we no longer see them

The Nazis removed them, as you can see at the ruins of Kremas IV and V and the two farm houses, or they are buried in the ruins of Kremas II or III. Or, they are behind the earth bank at Krema I. Or, the PB never got any further than the plaster and it never progressed into the bricks.

Fellas? Would we support and encourage Nessie in writing this essay?

It does not need an essay and I am not going to provide one. You want to bog the debate down in hypotheticals, so you can ignore your inability to evidence usage. This is why I am quarantined, as I will not play your game by your rules. I will not discuss your incredulity based on your inability to work out why there is no obvious PB at the gas chambers, when there is at the delousing chambers.

What you cannot cope with, is that evidence of usage is the Kremas were used for homicidal gassings. That means, logically and evidentially, in homicidal gassings, PB either does not form, or it is a barely noticeably level of formation and it is not like the delousing chambers. Why that is, is subject to some uncertainty and that is not evidence to prove there cannot have been homicidal gassings.

[Keen]

- What happened to those pesky blue bricks that we no longer see them

The Nazis removed them

Ah yes, the "magically disappearing bricks" theory.

Where have I heard something like that before?

[Keen]

Keen has you by the balls Nessie!

nessie doesn't have any balls.

[Keen]

Fellas? Would we support and encourage Nessie in writing this essay?

I am not going to provide one.

[Nessie]

Archie lives in a world where you can argue what happened in history;

viewtopic.php?p=26676#p26676

If you've got great arguments, just go ahead and make them.

Bombsaway and pretty much everyone else knows that history is evidenced;

There is an evidentiary record to be reckoned with here, which you have not done.

The Holocaust deniers here want to be called revisionists, but they do not earn that title when they argue, rather evidence, a revised history.

[Keen]

Archie lives in a world where you can argue what happened in history;

viewtopic.php?p=26676#p26676

If you've got great arguments, just go ahead and make them.

Bombsaway and pretty much everyone else knows that history is evidenced;

There is an evidentiary record to be reckoned with here, which you have not done.

The Holocaust deniers here want to be called revisionists, but they do not earn that title when they argue, rather evidence, a revised history.

The so-called "evidence" that you refer to is nothing but unsubstantiated allegations with no evidentiary value.

In order for evidence to be meaningful, it has to be substantiated, not "corroborated."

Unsubstantiated "evidence" doesn't prove a thing.

As we all know, with 100% certainty:

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.

[Nessie]

Archie suggests the strongest argument historians can make over the Red Cross visit to Auschwitz;

viewtopic.php?p=26698#p26698

A More Defensible Anti-Revisionist Argument

Sometimes I wonder who these guys are hoping to persuade with these tortured and unnecessary arguments. I really think they lose people by double-down on ridiculous things way too often. If I were on the other side, this is how I would try to deal with this document. I would say the ICRC did not have access to Auschwitz II and were therefore were unable to confirm the gassings there. I'd say that this letter reflects the opinion of an author who was apparently not convinced of the large scale gassings of Jews but that this person was mistaken and working with incomplete information. I would mention the "no further exterminations" point but I would not oversell it.

That is how I conclude the visit went. McClelland cannot confirm or deny mass murder operations, due to the limited scope of his investigation. He can confirm the rumours of mass murders and he is accepting they have happened, but they have now stopped, which, in retrospect, is found to be the case.

The Nazis passed up the perfect opportunity to authoritatively refute allegations of mass murder, by letting McClelland have access to the Birkenau Kremas and to speak to staff and prisoners there. It is reasonable to conclude, when someone is being obstructive by hiding evidence, or otherwise preventing access to it, that their conduct is criminal.