Carl Sagan's "Baloney Detection Kit"

[HansHill]

That is an unevidenced assertion. Just like revisionists fall apart when they try to evidence what happened at the Kremas.

When every single person who worked at a crematorium say it was modified to be used for gassings and they are corroborated by documents recording the modifications and circumstantial evidence around the use of the building, with mass arrivals and people not needed for work disappearing, that is evidence to prove mass murder. We also have evidence of motive and opportunity. A slam dunk in any courts, except the biased, conspiratorial so-called court of Holocaust denial.

Absolute slop.

[Nessie]

That is an unevidenced assertion. Just like revisionists fall apart when they try to evidence what happened at the Kremas.

When every single person who worked at a crematorium say it was modified to be used for gassings and they are corroborated by documents recording the modifications and circumstantial evidence around the use of the building, with mass arrivals and people not needed for work disappearing, that is evidence to prove mass murder. We also have evidence of motive and opportunity. A slam dunk in any courts, except the biased, conspiratorial so-called court of Holocaust denial.

Absolute slop.

How about you explain why?

[Nazgul]

people not needed for work disappearing, that is evidence to prove mass murder.

Invalid euthanasia, 14f13, a fact, the reasons for the selections. Legal under Reich law.

[HansHill]

How about you explain why?

Slop = low quality. You are a sloppy operator.

Your posts are slop.

[TlsMS93]

Which one of the so-called revisionist hypothesis about the use of the Kremas, do you support? Why are the others wrong?

Let's just measure the cyanide in the walls: if it's not there, it didn't happen.

[HansHill]

Which one of the so-called revisionist hypothesis about the use of the Kremas, do you support? Why are the others wrong?

Let's just measure the cyanide in the walls: if it's not there, it didn't happen.

Bingo.

[Nessie]

How about you explain why?

Slop = low quality. You are a sloppy operator.

Your posts are slop.

Why are they slop?

[Nessie]

Which one of the so-called revisionist hypothesis about the use of the Kremas, do you support? Why are the others wrong?

Let's just measure the cyanide in the walls: if it's not there, it didn't happen.

Traces of cyanide found in vents recovered from the ruins of Krema II here;

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/holocau ... t1894.html

Traces of cyanide found in the buildings used for gassings here;

https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... port.shtml

[HansHill]

Which one of the so-called revisionist hypothesis about the use of the Kremas, do you support? Why are the others wrong?

Let's just measure the cyanide in the walls: if it's not there, it didn't happen.

Traces of cyanide found in vents recovered from the ruins of Krema II here;

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/holocau ... t1894.html

Traces of cyanide found in the buildings used for gassings here;

https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... port.shtml

Since you have already confessed to not understanding the science behind what these results mean, it is pointless in addressing Rudolf's rebuttal of these results to you personally since you won't understand those either.

For those of you reading who are generalists and are comfortable in applying modest comprehension skills, please see HH Vol 2 chapter 8.3.2 which addresses these results, aimed to a general audience.

Quote where he states this:

I do not fully understand the chemistry behind Green (or Rudolf's) reasoning. I know Green is correct, because there is evidence mass gassings took place.

[Nessie]

Let's just measure the cyanide in the walls: if it's not there, it didn't happen.

Traces of cyanide found in vents recovered from the ruins of Krema II here;

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/holocau ... t1894.html

Traces of cyanide found in the buildings used for gassings here;

https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... port.shtml

Since you have already confessed to not understanding the science behind what these results mean, it is pointless in addressing Rudolf's rebuttal of these results to you personally since you won't understand those either.

For those of you reading who are generalists and are comfortable in applying modest comprehension skills, please see HH Vol 2 chapter 8.3.2 which addresses these results, aimed to a general audience.

This is what I replied to, "Let's just measure the cyanide in the walls: if it's not there, it didn't happen.". Those test results prove it is there and since Rudolf also accepts there are traces, that issue is now addressed.

The next issue is, is there enough residue to be consistent with mass gassings having taken place? Rudolf states no, Markiewicz and Green state yes, there is. Obviously gassing deniers agree with Rudolf, but, like him, they have a rather large elephant in the room and there is an elephant that is absent. The elephant in the room, is the evidence that mass gassings took place. The absent elephant is the so-called revisionist inability to evidence what the Leichenkellers were used for. Rudolf does not even try to produce an evidenced history as to the usage of the A-B buildings where gassings took place. Others collapse into contradictory, competing hypothesis.

HansHill, with his lack of any experience of investigations, thinks the reports of Rudolf, Green etc should be able to stand alone and produce a conclusion as to what happened inside the Kremas. He is wrong, since the chemical traces are only part of the evidence. Rudolf could only access a heavily modified Krema I Leichenkeller and a small part of the ruins of Krema II. He could not examine Kremas III, IV and V and the two bunker/farmhouse gas chambers, as they had been destroyed. His opinion on the amount of residue is merely that, an opinion. The lower than he thinks there should be residue, is not on its own sufficient to prove no mass gassings. Like all evidence, he needs to be corroborated and he is not.

[HansHill]

I do not fully understand the chemistry behind Green (or Rudolf's) reasoning.

To repeat: Nessie doesn't understand Rudolf's rebuttal. HH Vol 2 Chapter 8.3.2 for the rest of us

[TlsMS93]

Rudolf does not use the lack of traces of cyanide as a silver bullet, he also supports several documentary and testimonial issues to reach this conclusion. The arguments you make can be applied to revisionists not accepting the official results. You use documents and witnesses, the revisionist side too, but in a way that contradicts the convergence you say you have.

[Nessie]

I do not fully understand the chemistry behind Green (or Rudolf's) reasoning.

To repeat: Nessie doesn't understand Rudolf's rebuttal. HH Vol 2 Chapter 8.3.2 for the rest of us

That is only in regard to his use of chemical formula's. I understand his rebuttal argument, that the traces are too low for there to have been repeated mass gassings.

[Nessie]

Rudolf does not use the lack of traces of cyanide as a silver bullet, he also supports several documentary and testimonial issues to reach this conclusion. The arguments you make can be applied to revisionists not accepting the official results. You use documents and witnesses, the revisionist side too, but in a way that contradicts the convergence you say you have.

He cherry-picks some of the evidence, whilst ignoring most of it. Despite his access to archives, he fails to prove what did take place inside the Kremas, so he produces a denial, not a revision.

His argument is classic argument from incredulity, with some appeal to authority thrown in. He thinks that because he is a chemist, and he cannot work out how gassings could have taken place leaving the low residue results he got, therefore no gassings took place.

[HansHill]

I do not fully understand the chemistry behind Green (or Rudolf's) reasoning.

To repeat: Nessie doesn't understand Rudolf's rebuttal. HH Vol 2 Chapter 8.3.2 for the rest of us

That is only in regard to his use of chemical formula's. I understand his rebuttal argument, that the traces are too low for there to have been repeated mass gassings.

Its more than the chemical formulas you fail to understand, its

a) the entire approach from one side of the debate, and
b) the entire rebuttal from the other side of the debate.

Here is an older thread where you admit to not understanding why total cyanides were omitted from Markiewicz et al

Please note that after over 100 posts, nobody has provided any justification for Markiewicz's approach of excluding 99.9% of the total cyanide, nor has anyone explained where all that Prussian blue came from if (supposedly) not from Zyklon.

How many times do I need to remind you that since I am not a chemist, I cannot reliably comment on and explain his approach.

These explanations are seemingly beyond your grasp which is what we have known about you for a while.