Challenge for Believers

[Nessie]

... there is absolutely no reason why it (and the other hard sciences) cannot be used to prove the Holocaust.

Name a historical event that has been proven by scientific, rather than historical, evidencing.

[Nazgul]

Name a historical event that has been proven by scientific, rather than historical, evidencing.

There is no such thing as "proof" in science except in mathematics. It comes to probability. A theory is the highest level supported by a vast amount of evidence. Do not equate scientific theory with a hypothesis. Examples are the theory of motion postulated by Newton and atomic structure, by John Dalton. All scientific theories are open to re evaluation in the light of new findings. While "proof" is a word used in everyday language, in the context of science, the concept of a definitive "proof" is often considered a misnomer, as scientific knowledge is built on evidence and is subject to revision as new data emerges.
To answer the question, here are three examples of how science can give light on historical events.

1. Dr Charles Larson concluded using medical science that the inmates of the camps he visited died of typhus and related illness not by gas.
2. The WMAP survey provides strong evidence that supports the Big Bang theory. One cannot get more historical than this.
3. Forensic science is used to determine the probability of a crime, DNA etc. I am not surprised you do not know this.

[Nessie]

Name a historical event that has been proven by scientific, rather than historical, evidencing.

There is no such thing as "proof" in science except in mathematics. It comes to probability.

Which is why when Green and Rudolf disagree, we should look to the other evidence. HansHill and others do not understand that.

A theory is the highest level supported by a vast amount of evidence. Do not equate scientific theory with a hypothesis. Examples are the theory of motion postulated by Newton and atomic structure, by John Dalton. All scientific theories are open to re evaluation in the light of new findings. While "proof" is a word used in everyday language, in the context of science, the concept of a definitive "proof" is often considered a misnomer, as scientific knowledge is built on evidence and is subject to revision as new data emerges.
To answer the question, here are three examples of how science can give light on historical events.

1. Dr Charles Larson concluded using medical science that the inmates of the camps he visited died of typhus and related illness not by gas.

There was witness and documentary evidence prisoners died from typhus, a disease that was often rampant in the camps. Larson's post mortems corroborated that existing historical evidence, in the same way that archaeological surveys and forensic testing have corroborated historical evidence of mass cremations and gassings.

The WMAP survey provides strong evidence that supports the Big Bang theory. One cannot get more historical than this.

The Big Bang was a scientific event, and with no history around at the time, only science can evidence what happened. Jump forward to human existence and again, whilst science plays a role, it is not the means to establish what happened.

Forensic science is used to determine the probability of a crime, DNA etc. I am not surprised you do not know this.

Forensic evidence is primarily used to determine who committed a crime and again, on its own is never proof. Historical events are battles, parliaments, narratives that often run for years, such as the Holocaust and they are not proved by science. Revisionists misuse science to back up their illogical arguments, as they cannot investigate and gather evidence, as a historian normally would.

[Nazgul]

1. Which is why when Green and Rudolf disagree, we should look to the other evidence. HansHill and others do not understand that.
2. There was witness and documentary evidence prisoners died from typhus, a disease that was often rampant in the camps. Larson's post mortems corroborated that existing historical evidence, in the same way that archaeological surveys and forensic testing have corroborated historical evidence of mass cremations and gassings.
3. The Big Bang was a scientific event, and with no history around at the time, only science can evidence what happened. Jump forward to human existence and again, whilst science plays a role, it is not the means to establish what happened.
4. Forensic evidence is primarily used to determine who committed a crime and again, on its own is never proof. Historical events are battles, parliaments, narratives that often run for years, such as the Holocaust and they are not proved by science. Revisionists misuse science to back up their illogical arguments, as they cannot investigate and gather evidence, as a historian normally would.

1. In science there are things known as "variables" which is an element, feature, or factor that is liable to vary or change. The comparison is the "control". Your method in any discussion is to bring in or introduce extraneous or compounding variables to bring confusion. This is why topics are constantly changed instead of discussing the issues at hand. If one is not knowledgeable about the science under discussion discussing other matters is of little importance.
2. A question was asked about science proving history. This was shown, no need to do another rant on a gassing opinion. At the time it was considered every konzentrationslager had a gaskammer.
3. The big bang strongly appears to be a historical fact, the real creation, which dispels religious history.
4. Forensic science like archaeology does not exist in its own vacuum but relies heavily on other disciplines. Archaeology can be considered a science as it utilizes scientific methods and techniques to study the material remains of past human activity, but it is also a multidisciplinary field with connections to the humanities and social sciences. It seem actors like CSC "misuse science to back up their illogical arguments"

A real historian would not ramble like the quote above but say something like "Scientific methods are not the appropriate methods for establishing how likely historical events are; all truths are perishable including the alleged holocaust".

[HansHill]

You explained the lack of staining by them being "purpose built", I am asking you to expand on this rationale and giving you the specific example of delousing chambers at Dachau. You can talk about the execution chambers in the US as well.

Just so I'm crystal clear in the ask here: You are asking me to comment on why "purpose built" fumigation chambers (which I've also expanded to include actual real-world HcN execution chambers) do not exhibit observable Prussian Blue?

Again just to be super clear - one of the USA execution chambers looks like this (from the search results i believe this one is Mississippi). You'd like a comment on why there is no observable Prussian Blue inside here?

[HansHill]

1. In science there are things known as "variables" which is an element, feature, or factor that is liable to vary or change. The comparison is the "control". Your method in any discussion is to bring in or introduce extraneous or compounding variables to bring confusion. This is why topics are constantly changed instead of discussing the issues at hand. If one is not knowledgeable about the science under discussion discussing other matters is of little importance.
2. A question was asked about science proving history. This was shown, no need to do another rant on a gassing opinion. At the time it was considered every konzentrationslager had a gaskammer.
3. The big bang strongly appears to be a historical fact, the real creation, which dispels religious history.
4. Forensic science like archaeology does not exist in its own vacuum but relies heavily on other disciplines. Archaeology can be considered a science as it utilizes scientific methods and techniques to study the material remains of past human activity, but it is also a multidisciplinary field with connections to the humanities and social sciences. It seem actors like CSC "misuse science to back up their illogical arguments"

A real historian would not ramble like the quote above but say something like "Scientific methods are not the appropriate methods for establishing how likely historical events are; all truths are perishable including the alleged holocaust".

Mr Nazgul is correct. When i wrote above the hard sciences should "prove" the Holocaust, i was using the layman everyday interpretation of prove. This is not accurate, and so to clean up my language, that should read "support" the Holocaust.

However this sort of prancing around is completely redundant, as Mr Nazgul had no trouble whatsoever in understanding this from the context within which it was offered. Evidently only Nessie misunderstood. Subsequently, Mr Nazgul offered an excellent example of the "hard sciences" being able to offer us something, in that none of Dr Larson's autopsies found HcN poisoning as the cause of death.

Nessie and co can dance around with semantics all they like, but there is absolutely no reason why the hard sciences cannot be expected to offer us something valuable to support the Exterminationist view. The only explanation, is that the Exterminationist view is wrong.

[Nessie]

1. In science there are things known as "variables" which is an element, feature, or factor that is liable to vary or change. The comparison is the "control". Your method in any discussion is to bring in or introduce extraneous or compounding variables to bring confusion. This is why topics are constantly changed instead of discussing the issues at hand. If one is not knowledgeable about the science under discussion discussing other matters is of little importance.
2. A question was asked about science proving history. This was shown, no need to do another rant on a gassing opinion. At the time it was considered every konzentrationslager had a gaskammer.
3. The big bang strongly appears to be a historical fact, the real creation, which dispels religious history.
4. Forensic science like archaeology does not exist in its own vacuum but relies heavily on other disciplines. Archaeology can be considered a science as it utilizes scientific methods and techniques to study the material remains of past human activity, but it is also a multidisciplinary field with connections to the humanities and social sciences. It seem actors like CSC "misuse science to back up their illogical arguments"

A real historian would not ramble like the quote above but say something like "Scientific methods are not the appropriate methods for establishing how likely historical events are; all truths are perishable including the alleged holocaust".

Mr Nazgul is correct. When i wrote above the hard sciences should "prove" the Holocaust, i was using the layman everyday interpretation of prove. This is not accurate, and so to clean up my language, that should read "support" the Holocaust.

However this sort of prancing around is completely redundant, as Mr Nazgul had no trouble whatsoever in understanding this from the context within which it was offered. Evidently only Nessie misunderstood. Subsequently, Mr Nazgul offered an excellent example of the "hard sciences" being able to offer us something, in that none of Dr Larson's autopsies found HcN poisoning as the cause of death.

Nessie and co can dance around with semantics all they like, but there is absolutely no reason why the hard sciences cannot be expected to offer us something valuable to support the Exterminationist view. The only explanation, is that the Exterminationist view is wrong.

Glad you cleared that up.

Science backing up the history of the Holocaust includes forensic testing of the remains of the Kremas, which found traces of the use of Zyklon B in walls and vents recovered from Krema II. It also detected traces in bags of hair found in the camp store. At the AR camps, there was forensic testing of cremated remains that confirmed they were human and the detection of huge areas of disturbed ground containing cremated and larger human remains. That scientific evidence corroborates historical evidence from witnesses, documents etc and it contradicts revisionist claims.

Revisionists provide little scientific evidence, a failed GPR survey of TII by Richard Kreige and some testing for HCN traces by Leuchter and Rudolf.

Scientific evidence is not a revisionist who cannot work out the science of how the Nazis managed to gas, bury and cremate so many corpses. That is at best scientific opinion and much of it comes from people with no relevant training.

[Nazgul]

Science backing up the history of the Holocaust includes forensic testing of the remains of the Kremas, which found traces of the use of Zyklon B in walls and vents recovered from Krema II.

As a general fumigant this would be expected.

It also detected traces in bags of hair found in the camp store

.
What quantity of contamination? Everyone has hair cuts.

At the AR camps, there was forensic testing of cremated remains that confirmed they were human and the detection of huge areas of disturbed ground containing cremated and larger human remains

.
These are alleged AR camps based on flimsy evidence. I will mention again that Treblinka was a shelling and a bombing range. That should create disturbed ground to say the least.

That scientific evidence corroborates historical evidence from witnesses, documents etc and it contradicts revisionist claims.

In your mind only

Revisionists provide little scientific evidence, a failed GPR survey of TII by Richard Kreige and some testing for HCN traces by Leuchter and Rudolf.

You do not have the scientific chemical training to understand this.

Scientific evidence is not a revisionist who cannot work out the science of how the Nazis managed to gas, bury and cremate so many corpses. That is at best scientific opinion and much of it comes from people with no relevant training.

You wish to believe what you want, but is not the truth. There is no such thing as "scientific opinion"; science works on hard facts with considerable debate on those facts. How can scientific opinion come from those with no relevant training? A Doctor of Science (DSc) is the highest degree possible.

[HansHill]

Revisionists provide little scientific evidence, a failed GPR survey of TII by Richard Kreige and some testing for HCN traces by Leuchter and Rudolf.

Scientific evidence is not a revisionist who cannot work out the science of how the Nazis managed to gas, bury and cremate so many corpses. That is at best scientific opinion and much of it comes from people with no relevant training.

The chutzpah! When your very own side has allowed it's position to rest in such an indefensible state:

Rudolf complains that Markiewicz et al. have not responded to his queries. Why should they do so? What credibility does Rudolf have, that demands they answer his every objection no matter how ill-founded?

At any rate, Markiewicz died in 1997, so Rudolf will be waiting a long time for his response.

- Dr Green, Chemistry Is Not The Science, 2000

Curious!

[bombsaway]

You explained the lack of staining by them being "purpose built", I am asking you to expand on this rationale and giving you the specific example of delousing chambers at Dachau. You can talk about the execution chambers in the US as well.

Just so I'm crystal clear in the ask here: You are asking me to comment on why "purpose built" fumigation chambers (which I've also expanded to include actual real-world HcN execution chambers) do not exhibit observable Prussian Blue?

Again just to be super clear - one of the USA execution chambers looks like this (from the search results i believe this one is Mississippi). You'd like a comment on why there is no observable Prussian Blue inside here?

Yeah,

Well that room seems like it's built out of metal so why don't you stick to the Dachau delousing chambers which I posted a pic of.

[Archie]

Yeah,

Well that room seems like it's built out of metal so why don't you stick to the Dachau delousing chambers which I posted a pic of.

You're beating around the bush. You have implied but have failed to show that the Dachau example is applicable to LK1, etc.

You need to find an example where iron cyanide compounds did not form due to certain conditions which were also present in the disputed Auschwitz chambers. If the same conditions don't apply to Auschwitz then it is irrelevant.

By the way, the revisionist thesis is not that Prussian blue must always form. Germar's book goes into great length about the conditions that are necessary and he explains that LK1 had ideal conditions, in particular, the fresh construction, the high moisture, the high alkalinity, the type of plaster, the lack of any special coating, all were favorable for the formation of Prussian blue.

[bombsaway]

Yeah,

Well that room seems like it's built out of metal so why don't you stick to the Dachau delousing chambers which I posted a pic of.

You're beating around the bush. You have implied but have failed to show that the Dachau example is applicable to LK1, etc.

You need to find an example where iron cyanide compounds did not form due to certain conditions which were also present in the disputed Auschwitz chambers. If the same conditions don't apply to Auschwitz then it is irrelevant.

By the way, the revisionist thesis is not that Prussian blue must always form. Germar's book goes into great length about the conditions that are necessary and he explains that LK1 had ideal conditions, in particular, the fresh construction, the high moisture, the high alkalinity, the type of plaster, the lack of any special coating, all were favorable for the formation of Prussian blue.

From the Rudolf report https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document? ... 5e79d4f5f2

From the remarks of a Polish research team having conducted investigations on behalf of the Auschwitz Museum, we also know that the disinfestation chamber in the Auschwitz main camp is colored a spotty blue.56,57 To my knowledge, only the Zyklon B disinfestation chambers of Dachau camp (DEGESCH circulation chambers) exhibit no blue pigmentation, because the walls were professionally coated with a paint impermeable to gas and water.

It would make sense for the designers to do this if the staining was a well known feature (which it probably was at this time) because that would tip off the victims of some other purpose for the showers.

How do we know there was no coating w the destroyed Auschwitz chambers?

[Archie]

Yeah,

Well that room seems like it's built out of metal so why don't you stick to the Dachau delousing chambers which I posted a pic of.

You're beating around the bush. You have implied but have failed to show that the Dachau example is applicable to LK1, etc.

You need to find an example where iron cyanide compounds did not form due to certain conditions which were also present in the disputed Auschwitz chambers. If the same conditions don't apply to Auschwitz then it is irrelevant.

By the way, the revisionist thesis is not that Prussian blue must always form. Germar's book goes into great length about the conditions that are necessary and he explains that LK1 had ideal conditions, in particular, the fresh construction, the high moisture, the high alkalinity, the type of plaster, the lack of any special coating, all were favorable for the formation of Prussian blue.

From the Rudolf report https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document? ... 5e79d4f5f2

From the remarks of a Polish research team having conducted investigations on behalf of the Auschwitz Museum, we also know that the disinfestation chamber in the Auschwitz main camp is colored a spotty blue.56,57 To my knowledge, only the Zyklon B disinfestation chambers of Dachau camp (DEGESCH circulation chambers) exhibit no blue pigmentation, because the walls were professionally coated with a paint impermeable to gas and water.

It would make sense for the designers to do this if the staining was a well known feature (which it probably was at this time) because that would tip off the victims of some other purpose for the showers.

How do we know there was no coating w the destroyed Auschwitz chambers?

We've had this discussion before. This unsupported suggestion of yours that there was a special paint on the walls in LK1 etc is nothing but desperation.

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=1819&#p1819

[HansHill]

Archie has zoned into exactly what I was getting at, kudos sir!

BA - firstly your "metal" remark isn't consistent, so the Mississippi execution chamber still deserves a brief comment. As it is the iron present within the masonry at Birkenau that leads to the reaction upon exposure to HcN, we cannot simply say the "metal" is the problem. To be more consistent, what you have (rightly) observed, is that the inside lining of that chamber I posted appears to be some sort of aluminum sheet metal. Aluminum of course is a metal, but distinct from Iron.

Put more broadly, the execution chamber failed to meet one of the conditions for PB to have formed, in the case of Mississippi because one half of the ingredients (iron) was not present. Similarly at Dachau, we can point to similar factors which either interrupted or prevented the reaction from taking place. If the iron contained in the masonry was unexposed to HcN due to the impermeable paint acting as a protective barrier, then this would satisfy why the reaction failed to take place. This is in conjunction to as Rudolf explained, the Dachau chambers being purpose built, with a heating aparatus, where moisture, humidity and temperature were controlled, as features designed by Degesch (which the Birkenau fumigation chambers all lacked).

"How do we know there was no protective paint at the Birkenau site?"

Good question - was there? Nessie doesn't seem to think so, as the microscopic levels of HcN detected (at or below the detection levels) satisfies for him that the masonry was exposed to HcN. So you two gentleman would have a very interesting conversation internally amongst yourselves as to whether the masonry was indeed exposed to HcN, or whether a paint was applied to prevent this (at which case you must accept that the ND HcN levels are anomalous).

[bombsaway]

Good question - was there? Nessie doesn't seem to think so, as the microscopic levels of HcN detected (at or below the detection levels) satisfies for him that the masonry was exposed to HcN. So you two gentleman would have a very interesting conversation internally amongst yourselves as to whether the masonry was indeed exposed to HcN, or whether a paint was applied to prevent this (at which case you must accept that the ND HcN levels are anomalous).

Why should protective paint be viewed in absolute terms? Small levels of HCN get through but not enough to cause staining. Makes sense to me and to the AI:

The formation of Prussian Blue (iron hexacyanoferrate) requires specific conditions beyond just HCN exposure. It's not a simple all-or-nothing reaction. Paint coatings on masonry could indeed act as a semi-permeable barrier that allows some HCN molecules to penetrate while significantly reducing the overall reaction rate with iron compounds in the wall material.
In chemistry, protective barriers often work on a spectrum rather than as absolute blocks. Factors affecting permeability include:

Paint thickness and composition
Microcracks or imperfections in the coating
The chemical properties of both the paint and substrate
Environmental conditions (temperature, humidity)

Even with a protective coating, trace amounts of HCN could penetrate and be detected by sensitive analytical methods, while still preventing the more extensive exposure needed for visible Prussian Blue formation.
This is consistent with findings in modern industrial settings where protective coatings reduce but don't completely eliminate chemical transfer. The detection of low levels of HCN compounds would be expected even with partially effective protective barriers.

So this is what you have to disprove if you're taking an all or nothing position, which I find to be somewhat comical and indicative of your reductionist approach to the entire problem.

Remember that my position is merely that it's possible for gassings to have occurred without this sort of major staining that you saw at other delousing chambers. That's not a hard statement that it did happen, but a maybe. The fact that gas was sucked out of the room very quickly compared to the dedicated chambers is another confounding variable. Your assertion is it's impossible, or deeply improbable, so you have to account for all these factors. Your assertion is much stronger.