Flaws and Limitations in Chemistry of Auschwitz

[Archie]

All that shows, is that no one is absolutely sure about the conditions inside the gas chambers and why residues are lower than found in the delousing chambers. Chemists and the rest of us can hypothesis till the cows come home. Either way, not knowing, does not prove there were no gas chambers. You can pretend all you like that you know for sure, but you don't. No one does.

Okay, so if Holohoaxsters disagree and contradict themselves all over the place that's fine, but if revisionists have any disagreement on anything that automatically discredits revisionism in its entirety. Got it.

[HansHill]

All that shows, is that no one is absolutely sure about the conditions inside the gas chambers and why residues are lower than found in the delousing chambers. Chemists and the rest of us can hypothesis till the cows come home. Either way, not knowing, does not prove there were no gas chambers. You can pretend all you like that you know for sure, but you don't. No one does.

Okay, so if Holohoaxsters disagree and contradict themselves all over the place that's fine, but if revisionists have any disagreement on anything that automatically discredits revisionism in its entirety. Got it.

But Archie don't you see, those are honest to goodness mistakes! It's perfectly normal for an eyewitness to accidentally fabricate that they were electrocuted, masturbated and nuked. Happens all the time! Round here we just call it a wild weekend.

[Stubble]

[Nessie]

All that shows, is that no one is absolutely sure about the conditions inside the gas chambers and why residues are lower than found in the delousing chambers. Chemists and the rest of us can hypothesis till the cows come home. Either way, not knowing, does not prove there were no gas chambers. You can pretend all you like that you know for sure, but you don't. No one does.

Okay, so if Holohoaxsters disagree and contradict themselves all over the place that's fine, but if revisionists have any disagreement on anything that automatically discredits revisionism in its entirety. Got it.

No, you have not got it. In BOTH cases, it means the evidence is weak and as a result of that, no one can reach a consensus. So, when chemists cannot reach a consensus about why the Kremas tested with low levels of residue and so-called revisionists cannot reach a consensus as to what the Kremas were used for, it is because in both cases, the evidence is weak, for each of the various hypotheses.

Conversely, historians have reached a consensus as to what the Kremas were used for, because the evidence for gassings, is strong.

[Nessie]

All that shows, is that no one is absolutely sure about the conditions inside the gas chambers and why residues are lower than found in the delousing chambers. Chemists and the rest of us can hypothesis till the cows come home. Either way, not knowing, does not prove there were no gas chambers. You can pretend all you like that you know for sure, but you don't. No one does.

Okay, so if Holohoaxsters disagree and contradict themselves all over the place that's fine, but if revisionists have any disagreement on anything that automatically discredits revisionism in its entirety. Got it.

But Archie don't you see, those are honest to goodness mistakes! It's perfectly normal for an eyewitness to accidentally fabricate that they were electrocuted, masturbated and nuked. Happens all the time! Round here we just call it a wild weekend.

You are conflating atrocity stories, with eyewitness evidence. That is one of the most common and repeated mistakes made by so-called revisionists, when they look at the witness evidence. There is no eyewitness evidence, as to the use of electrocution etc, inside the Kremas.

[Hektor]

All that shows, is that no one is absolutely sure about the conditions inside the gas chambers and why residues are lower than found in the delousing chambers. Chemists and the rest of us can hypothesis till the cows come home. Either way, not knowing, does not prove there were no gas chambers. You can pretend all you like that you know for sure, but you don't. No one does.

Okay, so if Holohoaxsters disagree and contradict themselves all over the place that's fine, but if revisionists have any disagreement on anything that automatically discredits revisionism in its entirety. Got it.

But Archie don't you see, those are honest to goodness mistakes! It's perfectly normal for an eyewitness to accidentally fabricate that they were electrocuted, masturbated and nuked. Happens all the time! Round here we just call it a wild weekend.

I get the impression that if it wasn't for the Holy Holocaust Survivors being the witnesses and the desire to frame people associated with NS-Germany with crimes, those cases would be thrown out of court since the accusations lack evidence and plenty of the witnesses appear to be pathological liars.

[Nessie]

Okay, so if Holohoaxsters disagree and contradict themselves all over the place that's fine, but if revisionists have any disagreement on anything that automatically discredits revisionism in its entirety. Got it.

But Archie don't you see, those are honest to goodness mistakes! It's perfectly normal for an eyewitness to accidentally fabricate that they were electrocuted, masturbated and nuked. Happens all the time! Round here we just call it a wild weekend.

I get the impression that if it wasn't for the Holy Holocaust Survivors being the witnesses and the desire to frame people associated with NS-Germany with crimes, those cases would be thrown out of court since the accusations lack evidence and plenty of the witnesses appear to be pathological liars.

You have the wrong impression. Most of the death camp trials, were run by German prosecutors, in West, East and then unified Germany. None of the accused used the defence of claiming the camps were not death camps and what their actual use was. Instead of denying the crime, they claimed a lack of personal responsibility. The main evidence against the Nazis, was from the Nazis themselves.

[TlsMS93]

When they no longer had the death penalty and in Nuremberg everyone declared themselves innocent.

[Nessie]

All that shows, is that no one is absolutely sure about the conditions inside the gas chambers and why residues are lower than found in the delousing chambers. Chemists and the rest of us can hypothesis till the cows come home. Either way, not knowing, does not prove there were no gas chambers. You can pretend all you like that you know for sure, but you don't. No one does.

Okay, so if Holohoaxsters disagree and contradict themselves all over the place that's fine, but if revisionists have any disagreement on anything that automatically discredits revisionism in its entirety. Got it.

No, you have not got it. In BOTH cases, it means the evidence is weak and as a result of that, no one can reach a consensus. So, when chemists cannot reach a consensus about why the Kremas tested with low levels of residue and so-called revisionists cannot reach a consensus as to what the Kremas were used for, it is because in both cases, the evidence is weak, for each of the various hypotheses.

Conversely, historians have reached a consensus as to what the Kremas were used for, because the evidence for gassings, is strong.

Archie, you regularly accuse me of repetition, when it is you would repeatedly make claims that I have to repeatedly counter. I make the counter, you go quiet, then you make the claim again.

I have written about the significance of consensus before and explained its importance. Fact is, there is a consensus that the Kremas have a lower residue than the delousing chambers, and no one can form a consensus as to why that is.

So-called revisionists, some of whom are aware that the flaws and limitations of the evidence from chemical testing, and know it is not enough to prove anything, then fail to form a consensus as to what the Kremas were used for. Historians, on the other hand, have an evidenced consensus as to what took place.

Please don't go quiet on this counter to your claim, deal with it.

[Archie]

Okay, so if Holohoaxsters disagree and contradict themselves all over the place that's fine, but if revisionists have any disagreement on anything that automatically discredits revisionism in its entirety. Got it.

No, you have not got it. In BOTH cases, it means the evidence is weak and as a result of that, no one can reach a consensus. So, when chemists cannot reach a consensus about why the Kremas tested with low levels of residue and so-called revisionists cannot reach a consensus as to what the Kremas were used for, it is because in both cases, the evidence is weak, for each of the various hypotheses.

Conversely, historians have reached a consensus as to what the Kremas were used for, because the evidence for gassings, is strong.

Archie, you regularly accuse me of repetition, when it is you would repeatedly make claims that I have to repeatedly counter. I make the counter, you go quiet, then you make the claim again.

I have written about the significance of consensus before and explained its importance. Fact is, there is a consensus that the Kremas have a lower residue than the delousing chambers, and no one can form a consensus as to why that is.

So-called revisionists, some of whom are aware that the flaws and limitations of the evidence from chemical testing, and know it is not enough to prove anything, then fail to form a consensus as to what the Kremas were used for. Historians, on the other hand, have an evidenced consensus as to what took place.

Please don't go quiet on this counter to your claim, deal with it.

As a rule, if I feel that I have already made my point adequately and would merely be reiterating what I have already said, I leave my earlier posts to stand and don't bother replying. Unnecessary replies clutter up the thread with no benefit. If the post is self-evidently idiotic (like yours above) I often won't bother replying since I trust intelligent readers to figure it out themselves.

The revisionists-can't-agree-and-are-therefore-wrong argument has been addressed. I linked to an entire thread debunking that foolishness. Nick wouldn't even back you up on that one. Plus, if I were to reply, you would just reply back, and it would never end. It's rather ridiculous to complain about people "going silent" on you when you refuse to give anyone else the last word. There's only one guy I can think of who would be willing to have an endless back-and-forth with you (Keen) and that's the one guy you refuse to talk to.

As far as this thread is concerned, this is probably the worst possible topic you could have picked to use this argument in. You stepped on a rake there. Your side is notoriously contradictory on this topic. It's because they are grasping at straws. They've just been floating different, contradictory arguments for over 35 years, hoping one will work. This is called working backwards from your conclusion.

[Nessie]

......

Archie, you regularly accuse me of repetition, when it is you would repeatedly make claims that I have to repeatedly counter. I make the counter, you go quiet, then you make the claim again.

I have written about the significance of consensus before and explained its importance. Fact is, there is a consensus that the Kremas have a lower residue than the delousing chambers, and no one can form a consensus as to why that is.

So-called revisionists, some of whom are aware that the flaws and limitations of the evidence from chemical testing, and know it is not enough to prove anything, then fail to form a consensus as to what the Kremas were used for. Historians, on the other hand, have an evidenced consensus as to what took place.

Please don't go quiet on this counter to your claim, deal with it.

As a rule, if I feel that I have already made my point adequately and would merely be reiterating what I have already said, I leave my earlier posts to stand and don't bother replying. Unnecessary replies clutter up the thread with no benefit. If the post is self-evidently idiotic (like yours above) I often won't bother replying since I trust intelligent readers to figure it out themselves.

The revisionists-can't-agree-and-are-therefore-wrong argument has been addressed. I linked to an entire thread debunking that foolishness. Nick wouldn't even back you up on that one. Plus, if I were to reply, you would just reply back, and it would never end. It's rather ridiculous to complain about people "going silent" on you when you refuse to give anyone else the last word. There's only one guy I can think of who would be willing to have an endless back-and-forth with you (Keen) and that's the one guy you refuse to talk to.

I have not used that can't agree, therefore they are wrong argument. I have argued that where there is no agreement, that is a sign that none of the suggestions are well enough evidenced, for a consensus to form. I am arguing about the quality and quantity of evidence. Rather than say and therefore they are wrong, it would be accurate to say and therefore they do not know.

As far as this thread is concerned, this is probably the worst possible topic you could have picked to use this argument in. You stepped on rake there. Your side is notoriously contradictory on this topic. It's because they are grasping at straws. They've just been floating different, contradictory arguments for over 35 years, hoping one will work. This is called working backwards from your conclusion.

Historians work forwards, gathering evidence, to find out what happened. Chemists have gathered evidence pertaining to the Kremas, but cannot agree, due to a lack of evidence. The evidence that is missing, is primarily experimental, such as exposing plaster covered brick work to HCN for 30 minutes, 2 or 3 times a day, for a period of about a year, to see what residue is left.

The result is that you are trying to come to a definitive conclusion, based on a lack of scientific evidence, that is contradicted by the historical evidence of usage.

[Wahrheitssucher]

…it means the evidence is weak and as a result of that, …the evidence is weak, …because the evidence for gassings, is strong.

Archie, you …repeatedly make claims that I have to repeatedly counter. I make the counter, you go quiet, then you make the claim again.

I have written about the significance of consensus …there is a consensus… and no one can form a consensus as to why that is.
So-called revisionists, …then fail to form a consensus …Historians, on the other hand, have an evidenced consensus…

Please don't go quiet on this counter to your claim...

…Unnecessary replies clutter up the thread with no benefit.

Intentional “clutter” is regarded as beneficial to holyH defenders.
Filling topic threads with clutter” effectively buries the main facts and conceals the debunking of holyH misinfo under the “clutter”. That is this person’s mission.

If the post is self-evidently idiotic (like yours above) I often won't bother replying since I trust intelligent readers to figure it out for themselves.
…if I were to reply, you would just reply back, and it would never end.

That’s the intention.

When I first came to holyH revisionism I found the discussions/debates on CODOH extremely helpful when looking up specific topics. It was easier and more focused than reading any numbers of books, because I could do a search for a specific subject of interest and then see the strengths and weaknesses of arguments from both sides: both extermination-believer and revisionist.
Reading perhaps just six or seven back-and-forths from knowledgeable participants in discussion would lay out the salient details and the areas of disagreement.
It also helped identify what was verifiable fact and what wasn’t in both sides of the argument. Again something that as a newcomer, you can’t initially do by just reading a book.
It didn’t take long to identify the time wasters, so I would skip those and just read the replies and points of view of the people who came across as serious and well-informed protagonists.
That ability to understand a subjects pros and cons from reading a reasonably short concise debate I think is precisely what the time-wasters, like this individual, are trying to destroy.

There's only one guy I can think of who would be willing to have an endless back-and-forth with you (Keen) and that's the one guy you refuse to talk to.

And that is because Keen just sticks rigidly to ONE, clear, devastating question. That style doesn’t permit the ‘cluttering’ of it.