Rudolf's theory about mass gassing at A-B and the history of mass gassing there, are both falsifiable. The problem you have, is that the history is not easily falsified. The volume of evidence for mass gassings is overwhelming. You pretend it is not, fooling yourself into thinking it is intrinsically unfalsifiable. The use of code words, in particular special treatment and witnesses making mistakes, such as over estimating how many fitted inside the chambers, cannot be debunked as you think they should be. The "escape routes" used by historians, are actually rigorous, tested, investigatory methods, that are applied to all studies. Historians know that people make mistakes when estimating the size of crowds, because of the results of studies on estimation. Revisionists ignore that science and fail miserably to falsify the history. When they try to falsify, they come up all sorts of competing hypothesis, about bomb shelters, it was for delousing, it cannot have been used to gas anything, it was a corpse store and people showered there. That failure should serve as a warning to revisionists they are poor at investigations and their methodology is flawed.curioussoul wrote: ↑Mon May 26, 2025 9:38 pm This thread is absolutely comical. Nessie's responses highlight his utter lack of understanding of the scientific process, the historical method, and, as it were, evidencing (one of his favorite words). Given that he's essentially pushed into a corner, he's banking on the following arguments to somehow dig himself out of the mess:
(1) Because Rudolf acknowledges his theory is falsifiable (a key feature of historically and scientifically valid hypotheses), Nessie wants us to believe this is apparently a weakness in Rudolf's argumentation. To Nessie's credit, this is in contrast to the orthodox theory on the Holocaust, which has been carefully constructed such as to be unfalsifiable. What this means is that no matter which foundational pillar of the Holocaust is toppled (and they all have been), the theory can always be conveniently adapted to fit whatever evidentiary scenario arises. No matter how flimsy the basis upon which the Holocaust story rests, it can always be upheld because there is always an escape-route ready at hand - be it "code words", be it "they destroyed all the evidence", be it "all witnesses make mistakes", be it anything. This underscores the fundamentally unscientific nature of modern Holocaust studies.
I agree with the elimination process. The various revisionist hypotheses about delousing, showering etc can all be eliminated, due to a lack of evidence of usage, leaving gassings as the only evidenced usage.(2) If Rudolf is right, that would mean all of the other "evidence" which Nessie purports proves the Holocaust, must be wrong. Therefore, Rudolf simply can not be correct. Conon Doyle's classical adage, "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth", does not exist for Nessie. Yet there is at least one such scenario to which Conan Doyle's quote indisputably applies: the cremation capacity at the Reinhard camps. We know for an absolute fact that it would not have been possible to cremate the remains of the Jews allegedly gassed at the Reinhard camps under the circumstances and in the timeframe alleged. That is an indisputable fact of physical reality, the consequences of which carry deadly implications for the historicity of the Holocaust.
It is not a fact of physical reality that cremations on the scale alleged were physically impossible. That is the logically flawed argument from incredulity. Just because you cannot work out how so many were cremated, does not therefore mean there were no mass cremations. When there is corroborated witness and physical evidence for the mass cremations, that is overwhelming evidence to prove mass cremations.
Argument from incredulity. Just because you cannot work out how it happened, does not therefore mean it did not happen. To prove mass gassings with Zyklon B in gas chambers of the design used at the Kremas did not happen, you either need to somehow replicate the gassings and show that they would have left staining, or you need evidence to prove what the Leichenkellers were used for, 1943-4. You have neither, all you have is your argument from disbelief.(3) The concentration of HCN in the gas chambers was allegedly much lower than in the delousing facilities, which would explain the lack of Prussian Blue. There is no historiographic evidence for this, it is purely an argument from convenience. The historical problem with this argument is that it contradicts the claims of their main witness, Rudolf Hoess. Hoess is one of only a handful of witnesses to ever give specific numbers for the amount of Zyklon B used in the gas chambers; he claimed that the amount was practically the same as that used for delousings. Germar Rudolf has also been able to demonstrate that the concentration of HCN is not necessarily of any major importance for the formation of Prussian Blue. He gives numerous examples of newly renovated buildings receiving singular delousings with HCN and resulting in major Prussian Blue discolorations. It also contradicts numerous witness testimonies wherein the victims died within less than 10 minutes, an absolute impossibility unless the concentrations of Zyklon B were astronomically high, as pointed out by HansHill. As explained before, U.S. gas chamber execution victims had longer death times for a higher concentration of HCN than that alleged at Auschwitz. In U.S. gas chambers, the gas was released at high concentrations directly into the face of the victim, yet they survived for 14 minutes or longer on average. The idea that the Zyklon B would have been able to spread uniformly at significant concentrations in the large hall of the gas chamber is flatly contradicted by the evidence and by common sense.
Correct, no one is certain as to why Prussian blue is not there in Krema I and the small part of Krema II that can be accessed. It may have been present in Kremas II, IV and V and the two farm houses, but they were demolished, such that nothing of what was the Leichenkeller remains.(4) Because of the mere fact that anti-revisionists such as Markiewicz and Green have argued against Rudolf, the jury is apparently still out on the question of Prussian Blue, despite the fact that no one has yet to come up with a single plausible explanation for why there is no Prussian Blue in the gas chambers, be they chemists or not.
I already have, his hypothesis about residue and Prussian Blue is not supported by the evidence of usage. Instead, that evidence contradicts him.I have a challenge for Nessie. Show us you're serious: steelman Rudolf's argument and see where you end up. Alright?
They're just that, excuses. These excuses are used to construct a theory of history which is immune to falsification, because no matter what changes or what new evidence is discovered, your theory still "stands". A good example of this would be the diesel story for some of the Reinhard camps. From having been a hard and fast historical truth, the realization suddenly struck (after Friedrich Berg's article) that the diesel exhaust story is simply technically unfeasible. This was no problem for the Holocaust historians, however. They simply changed their mind, and all of a sudden petrol engines had been the murder weapon of choice, and the witnesses were simply mistaken.
