Carl Sagan's "Baloney Detection Kit"

[Stubble]

Nessie, some of the control samples from Green and Markiewicz are higher than the 'homicidal gas chamber' samples. When they tested for residue and they excluded iron blues, they tested for literal background trace. Literal background levels.

I don't know how else to put this. If I were to sample the concrete in the wall of my pool I think it would exceed the levels found in the 'homicidal gas chambers' at the Auschwitz Complexes.

[Nessie]

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.

Am I wrong to say that Rudolf's approach is to argue the traces are too low for there to have been homicidal gassings?
Am I wrong to say Green etc approach is to argue that traces are not too low?

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.

Yup, I don't understand that, a concession that is not as significant as you are trying to make out, since you do not know enough about the science to be able to reliably conclude Rudolf is correct, the other chemists are wrong and evidentially, we are left not knowing what happened inside the Kremas.

[Nessie]

Nessie, some of the control samples from Green and Markiewicz are higher than the 'homicidal gas chamber' samples. When they tested for residue and they excluded iron blues, they tested for literal background trace. Literal background levels.

I don't know how else to put this. If I were to sample the concrete in the wall of my pool I think it would exceed the levels found in the 'homicidal gas chambers' at the Auschwitz Complexes.

I doubt that. Common sense states that a surface has to be exposed to Zyklon B or its component parts, for there to be traces. Have you evidence your pool has been exposed to that?

[Stubble]

You seem unfamiliar with the terms 'trace' and 'background'.

Have you ever eaten arsenic? Because, it's in your bones buddy. Just not in a statistically significant amount.

Do you have proof the concrete provided for my pool was screened for the presence of these neutral markers for cyanids or that they were removed from the concrete?

That some of the control samples exceeded the contents of the samples for the 'homicidal gas chambers' is a clue shaggy.

[Nessie]

You seem unfamiliar with the terms 'trace' and 'background'.

Have you ever eaten arsenic? Because, it's in your bones buddy. Just not in a statistically significant amount.

Do you have proof the concrete provided for my pool was screened for the presence of these neutral markers for cyanids or that they were removed from the concrete?

That some of the control samples exceeded the contents of the samples for the 'homicidal gas chambers' is a clue shaggy.

Rudolf has proposed a hypothesis, that he and other gassing deniers assert is, on its own, proof that gassings did not happen. There is no actual experimentation, exposing Zyklon B to walls as found in the Kremas I and II, using the approximate timings of exposure suggested by witnesses, for an estimated number of gassings, whilst washing the wall in between gassings, to replicate, as closely as possible, the conditions found in the chambers. Then there is the issue of the modifications to Krema I and the blowing up and subsequent exposure to the elements at Krema II. I am no scientist, but I know that, alone, makes Rudolf's hypothesis unproven.

Now, if Green, Markiewicz and other chemists agreed with Rudolf's hypothesis, and I should add Leuchter, then there would be a cause to suspect gassings had not taken place. Consensus is important, as I am sure you would agree. Instead, there is a split. Even if there was a consensus, there would still be the problem of the evidence that gassings took place. Even if a group of scientists cannot work out why mass gassing would leave so little residue, that is not, on its own, proof no gassings took place.

Gassing deniers hate this, but the scientific hypothesis, which is untested, even if there was a consensus, cannot ignore the evidence of usage inside the Kremas. When that untested hypothesis has no consensus, it is, scientifically, weak. Gassing deniers have no issue, since they are generally not logical, in illogically cherry-picking the hypothesis that they want to believe in and incorrectly declare it proof.

[Stubble]

You are adhering to the 'they washed down the walls' bit?

You know that testimony is singular, late, and an outlier, don't you?

Also, science is not democracy, consensus doesn't matter, hence we moved past geocentric theory to heliocentric theory by refining data and observation.

We have consensus, for political reasons, on man made climate change. The biggest drivers of climate change on earth are the sun and the earth's electromagnetic fields. Mans impact on climate is almost nil. You could remove every human from the earth and not stop climate change.

[HansHill]

FFS Nessie has pissed around and derailed yet another thread (about Carl Sagan of all topics) with his abysmal slop.

Nessie: While it's perfectly fine to not understand a topic, and in fact somewhat admirable to proudly demonstrate it as frequently and loudly as you do; to be so wrecklessly ignorant as to why that understanding matters to the very topic you are debating is a very different thing entirely.

This is not "two competing theories" as you so dishonestly put it. This is one narrative that has drawn significant questions, and the answers that were forthcoming have been fumbled catastrophically by the narrative holders. Bailer fumbled it, Markiewicz fumbled it, Green fumbled it.

To put a final point on this (for the others reading as i know he will hilariously fail to also understand this), Green signed off his Magnum Opus "Chemistry Is Not The Science" with this glib summation of where his side stands:

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

That's what you have chose to defend, Nessie. You have chosen to defend why your side cannot and does not account for Rudolf's critiques. I know you don't understand why this matters, but it does. No amount of playing dumb on the science and deferring to authorities will cut it either, when those authorities come up just as laughably empty handed as you on this forum.

[Callafangers]

You are adhering to the 'they washed down the walls' bit?

You know that testimony is singular, late, and an outlier, don't you?

If I recall correctly, it was not just late but as recent as ~2005, i.e. well-after Rudolf's findings would have warranted, "oh shit, we better change our story."

[Stubble]

I thought it was '97, as a response to nobody having found cyanids in any of the 'homicidal gas chambers'. It may have been '05. I'd have to look.

Very, very late though, like, at least 50 years after the fact.

[Nessie]

You are adhering to the 'they washed down the walls' bit?

You know that testimony is singular, late, and an outlier, don't you?

It is still a factor that would need to be included in any experimentation.

Also, science is not democracy, consensus doesn't matter, hence we moved past geocentric theory to heliocentric theory by refining data and observation.

We have consensus, for political reasons, on man made climate change. The biggest drivers of climate change on earth are the sun and the earth's electromagnetic fields. Mans impact on climate is almost nil. You could remove every human from the earth and not stop climate change.

It is evidentially and logically notable, that historians have reached a consensus as to the usage of the AR camps, Chelmno and the A-B Kremas, but so-called revisionists have not and have multiple, competing, contradicting hypothesis, none of which they can evidence taking place. Historians have succeeded where so-called revisionists have failed.

[Nessie]

FFS Nessie has pissed around and derailed yet another thread (about Carl Sagan of all topics) with his abysmal slop.

I did not introduce the chemistry to this thread, but it is a good example of how revisionists fail in their investigations.

Nessie: While it's perfectly fine to not understand a topic, and in fact somewhat admirable to proudly demonstrate it as frequently and loudly as you do; to be so wrecklessly ignorant as to why that understanding matters to the very topic you are debating is a very different thing entirely.

I am not as ignorant as you make me out to be. You are as ignorant about the actual chemistry as I am.

This is not "two competing theories" as you so dishonestly put it.

Either gassings happened, or they did not. You are dishonestly misrepresenting the argument.

This is one narrative that has drawn significant questions, and the answers that were forthcoming have been fumbled catastrophically by the narrative holders. Bailer fumbled it, Markiewicz fumbled it, Green fumbled it.

So you assert, but the elephants in the room for you are the evidence, and lack of evidence, of usage.

To put a final point on this (for the others reading as i know he will hilariously fail to also understand this), Green signed off his Magnum Opus "Chemistry Is Not The Science" with this glib summation of where his side stands:

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

That's what you have chose to defend, Nessie. You have chosen to defend why your side cannot and does not account for Rudolf's critiques. I know you don't understand why this matters, but it does. No amount of playing dumb on the science and deferring to authorities will cut it either, when those authorities come up just as laughably empty handed as you on this forum.

Rudolf has been addressed, the chemistry is inconclusive, he even signed off his report admitting he may be wrong, so he knows the chemistry is not definitive. Rudolf also comes up empty handed, when it comes to evidence of usage! A total fail on his part.

[Nessie]

You are adhering to the 'they washed down the walls' bit?

You know that testimony is singular, late, and an outlier, don't you?

If I recall correctly, it was not just late but as recent as ~2005, i.e. well-after Rudolf's findings would have warranted, "oh shit, we better change our story."

Yet, the story has not changed. That is because the evidence of usage stands as the only evidence and so-called revisionists have failed to revise, as they cannot produce evidence to prove a different usage.

All Rudolf and Leuchter have evidenced, is that mass gassing leaves less residue than expected and a lot less than delousing. It is an interesting point, like the realisation diesel was not the fuel used for gassings at the AR camps, but it does not affect the evidence which proves what happened.

[Stubble]

You are adhering to the 'they washed down the walls' bit?

You know that testimony is singular, late, and an outlier, don't you?

It is still a factor that would need to be included in any experimentation.

Also, science is not democracy, consensus doesn't matter, hence we moved past geocentric theory to heliocentric theory by refining data and observation.

We have consensus, for political reasons, on man made climate change. The biggest drivers of climate change on earth are the sun and the earth's electromagnetic fields. Mans impact on climate is almost nil. You could remove every human from the earth and not stop climate change.

It is evidentially and logically notable, that historians have reached a consensus as to the usage of the AR camps, Chelmno and the A-B Kremas, but so-called revisionists have not and have multiple, competing, contradicting hypothesis, none of which they can evidence taking place. Historians have succeeded where so-called revisionists have failed.

No, itself not notable. The 'research' is self referential in nature and almost none of the historians have ever looked at it critically. Without the revisionist movement, the corrections that have been made so far never would have happened.

[Nessie]

You are adhering to the 'they washed down the walls' bit?

You know that testimony is singular, late, and an outlier, don't you?

It is still a factor that would need to be included in any experimentation.

Also, science is not democracy, consensus doesn't matter, hence we moved past geocentric theory to heliocentric theory by refining data and observation.

We have consensus, for political reasons, on man made climate change. The biggest drivers of climate change on earth are the sun and the earth's electromagnetic fields. Mans impact on climate is almost nil. You could remove every human from the earth and not stop climate change.

It is evidentially and logically notable, that historians have reached a consensus as to the usage of the AR camps, Chelmno and the A-B Kremas, but so-called revisionists have not and have multiple, competing, contradicting hypothesis, none of which they can evidence taking place. Historians have succeeded where so-called revisionists have failed.

No, itself not notable. The 'research' is self referential in nature...

Please evidence that claim. No need evidence that historians did not bother searching for, and verifying evidence, or checking evidence that had already been produced.

.... and almost none of the historians have ever looked at it critically.

Please evidence that claim.

Without the revisionist movement, the corrections that have been made so far never would have happened.

What corrections?

[Stubble]

Wait, are you saying yehuda bauer doesn't reference yitzhak arrad, et cetera? Is this not patently obvious that the entire vein of research is incestuous? You ask me to just post the works cited section from all of these books by these various authors?

I legitimately am required to post the works cited sections of these works?

The second one, this is what would be referred to as an opinion. Given the incestuous relationship of the various works, I feel this is obvious, but, it is my opinion.

With the corrections, I'm referring to things like the reduction of the death tolls at camps like majdanek and auschwitz. That no one looked at these things for 40 years, until after the Berlin wall and the Soviet Union fell is a clue shaggy.