Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Discussions
User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Nessie » Thu Nov 01, 2012 2:26 pm

My reply to post #279

You said "This is gain false, not my claim, but i backed up that even orthodox sources claims this is an estimate, as far as I know, Nessie is probably first who ever claimed that document says that 4,756 peoples were cremated on some day in June. This doesn´t mean Nessie has different interpretation, this means that Nessie invented something what is not in the document. Period."

I originally cited the letter as described by Mattogno here, para 6.1

http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndcrema.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

at no point does Mattogno use the work estimate or theoretical when he cites the contents of the letter. He states "In this letter he mentions the following 24-hour capacities of the crematoria of Auschwitz and Birkenau"

So from your sources there is mention of estimate, but not from mine. So either Mattogno by your definition is a liar, or the letter does not use the works theoretical or estimate. Which one is it Bob?

Here you yet again willfully misinterpret what I have said and add in stuff I have not said.

"Thank you that you have confirmed I was correct about you and your nonsense, you again repeated it, here is more:

Nessie - So whilst not an extermination camp in name, it was built to meet the plan of work and die. ; The evidence that people were sent to Buchenwald to work and die...

Buchenwald was built/open in 1937 to meet some alleged plan "created" in 1942 - alleged plan for Jews to to work and die in the camp, i.e. some 4 years before the alleged policy of evacuation to east and alleged extermination actually existed or some 4.5 years before Wannsee - source for this plan for Nessie. For this alleged plan, they prepared crematoria capacity (muffles/number of detainees/mortality) which surpassed even cremation capacity of alleged extermination camp Birkenau or completely non-existent crematoria capacity in alleged pure extermination AR camps.

I will no more address his utter nonsenses and clear inventions about Buchenwald based on nothing. I already refuted everything about it and repeatedly by many sources. That he ignores it, that is his business. Period."

Wannsee was about what had been taking place and what was planned in the future. Jews went to Birkenau worked there as slave labourers and died there from disease and other natural causes. Are you going to dispute that? Wannsee was a plan to move Jews from West to east via other places to work and die from natural causes. Do you dispute that?

You are then forced to argue against me my twists of language

"So the same nonsenses plus some new - now he transformed Buchenwald to "ghetto"."

So what if they said "so called ghettos". The fact is the Nazis are describing Jews being cleared from Western Europe in stages via various places to the east. That is what happened. It is not important to the argument as a whole that some Jews only made it as far as Buchenwald. You cannot see the forest for the trees, or maybe more accurately , you do not want to.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Nessie » Thu Nov 01, 2012 2:34 pm

Bob wrote:
.....

1)In the other words, fundamental question no. 1 is again without an answer so closed, he does not know. Problem with other claim from Nessie is that nobody ever claimed something about tents or wooden boxes, this is just ridiculous.

.....

2)Answer to this very simple question: Tell me why they during the construction of the roof installed wooden plates allegedly used for fastening of "fake" showers used to trick victims, and why not the most important thing - the introduction holes for Zyklon B themselves - if you claim that they created them after the roof was constructed. I am awaiting your explanation. They forgot or what? - is again completely missing.

......

3)According to this individual, explosion altered alleged introduction holes in the way, that they were "shrunken" from 70cm to some smaller size because I already informed him, that there are no reported alleged introduction holes with this side, for this reason they already invented new "estimated" size of some 50cm. Is this man out of his mind? (rhetoric question)

I am afraid that future debate with this individual is waste of time, his claims are simply not part of orthodox version anymore, but I wanted to see how he is able to defend his own claims, but when I see what he produces, is clear that that something must be wrong with him.
1 - either a willful inability to understand what I said, or a deflection or a case of Bob's Dunning Kruger.

2 - the false dilemma of answering your forgot or what question is being ignored. My answer is that the wooden plates were like a number of other parts of the Krema, they were put in and then plans changed.

3 - you are making things up again. I am not saying that the holes shrunk, so you are being deceptive by putting shruken in quotation marks. I am saying what I have always said, blowing the roof up means we cannot get any meaningful measurements of holes there.

Then you resort to your usual ad hominems.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

User avatar
Darren Wilshak
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1467
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2012 1:16 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Darren Wilshak » Thu Nov 01, 2012 2:44 pm

Another day in denier chimp land...
"We are still waiting for anyone to rebut the main theme of the article that the decode in question and the numbers it quoted perfectly match those in the Korherr report.

Until such a rebuttal comes to light and goes through peer review the article stands the test of time. And after 10 years since the article was published both Peter (Witte) and I have moved on to other research projects. "

AHF

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Bob » Thu Nov 01, 2012 2:51 pm

My reply to post #279

You said "This is gain false, not my claim, but i backed up that even orthodox sources claims this is an estimate, as far as I know, Nessie is probably first who ever claimed that document says that 4,756 peoples were cremated on some day in June. This doesn´t mean Nessie has different interpretation, this means that Nessie invented something what is not in the document. Period."

I originally cited the letter as described by Mattogno here, para 6.1

http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndcrema.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

at no point does Mattogno use the work estimate or theoretical when he cites the contents of the letter. He states "In this letter he mentions the following 24-hour capacities of the crematoria of Auschwitz and Birkenau"

So from your sources there is mention of estimate, but not from mine. So either Mattogno by your definition is a liar, or the letter does not use the works theoretical or estimate. Which one is it Bob?

Here you yet again willfully misinterpret what I have said and add in stuff I have not said.
To which which part of the word capacity you do not understand? Do you know difference between capacity and the actual event? My house has capacity to house 50 peoples at one time, does this means that 50 peoples were actually housed in my house on some day?

In fact Mattogno used words "In order to determine to what extent the data provided by these three documents are technologically founded...." and he then present the rest of his study ignored by you. Nessie thus omitted the rest of his source which clearly contradicts his invention, he simply did not read it.
So from your sources there is mention of estimate, but not from mine.
And what this has to do with the fact that you should had to stop with your invention after I already informed you that is false even from the point of orthodox sources?

And what this has to do with the fact that you invented something not stated in your source? Where your source Mattogno said something about that these peoples were cremated on some day? Simply nowhere, you invented something not contained or supported by your own source, this is ridiculous.

For the rest of his comment I repeat:

I will no more address his utter nonsenses and clear inventions about Buchenwald based on nothing. I already refuted everything about it and repeatedly by many sources. That he ignores it, that is his business. Period.

User avatar
Darren Wilshak
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1467
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2012 1:16 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Darren Wilshak » Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:01 pm

LOL and Bob is still clinging to Mattogno. As said another day in chimp land...
"We are still waiting for anyone to rebut the main theme of the article that the decode in question and the numbers it quoted perfectly match those in the Korherr report.

Until such a rebuttal comes to light and goes through peer review the article stands the test of time. And after 10 years since the article was published both Peter (Witte) and I have moved on to other research projects. "

AHF

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Nessie » Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:25 pm

Bob wrote:
......
As for who blew up Krema II. Here, extraordinarily the liar Elie Wiesel is used as a denier source to 'prove' the Soviets did it!
Not WHO Nessie, you clearly said "Then the Nazis blew the Krema roof up" - so you again diverted subject from your claim and instead of addressing my counter arguments, you have dodged it with irrelevant Wiesel who contradicts your own claim!

So again, where exactly is your evidence that the Nazis did it since I handily refuted your claim as nonsensical and unfounded?
I note you deflect by commenting the converted to an air raid shelter Krema I was left in tact.
How I deflect it, maybe this individual can explain it.
Nessie wrote:
Bob wrote:4)Can Nessie explain to me why Soviets tampered roof in the way to remove original dimensions or to disrupt introduction holes if there were any, if he claims that Soviets affected how the holes looks now?
4 - You ask me why would the Soviets tamper with the Krema II roof, yet you have been suggesting they blew it up. The Soviets, just like the Nazis used widespread propaganda and lies. I have doubts about anything left with the Soviets, unless clearly left untouched, which Krema II is not. Here is why I say claims of what happened based on the roof alone are unreliable (from the Zundel Trial)
4)This is utter lie, I in my quote did not say a word about who blew up the roof as this point is clearly irrelevant to this debate, I only refuted Nessie´s falsehood about how Nazis allegedly did it. As for Nazi propaganda, here is dodged comment in different thread. So now the dodged question again: Can Nessie explain to me why Soviets tampered roof in the way to remove original dimensions or to disrupt introduction holes if there were any, if he claims that Soviets affected how the holes looks now?

Nessie dodged whole question and attempted to divert subject to debate about the roof´s condition, his off topic claims are again full of falsehoods, as i have explained "in fact mainly intact and only broken/cracked to a few large blocks or cracked on places where this roof fell on the supporting pillars which pierced the roof."
Even more incredible is to see what Leuchter writes in his report:

"In Birkenau, Kremas II,III,IV and V are collapsed, or razed to the
ground. Bunker I (the red house) is gone.""
What exactly is incredible about this according to Nessie?
I stand by my position that other evidence has to be used and the Kremas alone cannot be used as the one and only source. Here you go on yet again to make up stuff "This is also clear double standard, Nessie and Pelt or Mazal et. al. know from the tampered roof that there were introduction holes thus they are clearly making conclusions, but when revisionists are making conclusions from the same roof, then this excuse from "believers" follows - roof is too tampered to make conclusions - in the other words - not too tampered for believers to make conclusions, but too tampered for revisionists to make their conclusions." as I say that applies to both sides. In fact only the believers go on to look at the other evidence, the deniers just ignore it or cry it is all faked.
This is of course utter nonsense, as proven even by exterminationists, there are no holes 70 cm x 70 cm so nonsense from Nessie, "deniers" can use roof without problem. Needless to say that there are not even smaller introduction holes. The last sentence is again falsehood as usual.

........
Going back to your original list of questions in post #258 you originally said "Is unlikely that Germans blew up already dismantled buildings.." so you there you suggest you are not sure who did blow them up. You mentioned Krema I "They left alleged gas chamber in crematorium I intact (at this time converted to shelter by a few added walls in former alleged gas chamber)"

So it is not unreasonable to mention who blew the Krema II up and Krema I, which you go to say is a "deflect" which is not the case as I am referring to what you said. I think is is also worth noting that deniers use Elie Weisel to supposed show the Soviets blew Krema II up.

As to the evidence that the Nazis did it

http://en.auschwitz.org/h/index.php?opt ... mitstart=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and numerous other sources more reliable than Elie Weisel. This shows how Bob creates nonsenses and then calls me a liar.

"This is utter lie, I in my quote did not say a word about who blew up the roof as this point is clearly irrelevant to this debate, I only refuted Nessie´s falsehood about how Nazis allegedly did it." You claim you said nothing about who blew the roof up, but then claim I was false to say the Nazis did it :? Make up your mind Bob, who blew the Krema II up?

You ask "Can Nessie explain to me why Soviets tampered roof in the way to remove original dimensions or to disrupt introduction holes if there were any, if he claims that Soviets affected how the holes looks now?" I answered that by saying the Soviets tampered with other evidence, so they may have tampered with the roof and unless something is clearly untouched, i would have my doubts about it. The Soviets may not have tampered with the roof. Fact is I do not think anyone knows.

You go to make out that the roof of Krema II is "in fact mainly intact and only broken/cracked to a few large blocks or cracked on places where this roof fell on the supporting pillars which pierced the roof." Yet Leuchter describes it as "collapsed or raised to the ground" and I have linked to pictures showing just how badly damaged it is. You need to make out that the roof is in good enough condition to be able to say no holes. I say the evidence is your descriptive is not true.

You are not in a position to be able to say conclusively that there are no holes that could not have taken metal and mesh columns that were 70 by 70 cm from the roof as it is now.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Nessie » Thu Nov 01, 2012 4:11 pm

Bob wrote:
My reply to post #279

You said "This is gain false, not my claim, but i backed up that even orthodox sources claims this is an estimate, as far as I know, Nessie is probably first who ever claimed that document says that 4,756 peoples were cremated on some day in June. This doesn´t mean Nessie has different interpretation, this means that Nessie invented something what is not in the document. Period."

I originally cited the letter as described by Mattogno here, para 6.1

http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndcrema.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

at no point does Mattogno use the work estimate or theoretical when he cites the contents of the letter. He states "In this letter he mentions the following 24-hour capacities of the crematoria of Auschwitz and Birkenau"

So from your sources there is mention of estimate, but not from mine. So either Mattogno by your definition is a liar, or the letter does not use the works theoretical or estimate. Which one is it Bob?

Here you yet again willfully misinterpret what I have said and add in stuff I have not said.
To which which part of the word capacity you do not understand? Do you know difference between capacity and the actual event? My house has capacity to house 50 peoples at one time, does this means that 50 peoples were actually housed in my house on some day?

In fact Mattogno used words "In order to determine to what extent the data provided by these three documents are technologically founded...." and he then present the rest of his study ignored by you. Nessie thus omitted the rest of his source which clearly contradicts his invention, he simply did not read it.
So from your sources there is mention of estimate, but not from mine.
And what this has to do with the fact that you should had to stop with your invention after I already informed you that is false even from the point of orthodox sources?

And what this has to do with the fact that you invented something not stated in your source? Where your source Mattogno said something about that these peoples were cremated on some day? Simply nowhere, you invented something not contained or supported by your own source, this is ridiculous.

For the rest of his comment I repeat:

I will no more address his utter nonsenses and clear inventions about Buchenwald based on nothing. I already refuted everything about it and repeatedly by many sources. That he ignores it, that is his business. Period.
I pointed out to you that Mattogno used the word capacity not theoretical or estimate. They have different meanings. I see you are trying to argue that none mean that 4,756 persons were actually cremated and that the Nazis were just writing down what was possible. I want a translation of the letter.

If you said your house had a capacity of 50 people during a time when loads of people were going to your house, I would say that your capacity is based on actual experience. If you never had any visitors at all and you said your house's capacity was 50, I would wonder why are you bothering to tell me that and would recognise you have estimated.

That Mattogno goes to say "In order to determine to what extent the data provided by these three documents are technologically founded." is in fact him knowing the numbers quoted for cremations are way higher than typhus can account for. So he needs to find a reason to be able to say, those numbers were never reached.

I can see an argument for the figures in June 1943 being an estimated capacity due to the numbers of people being deported to the camp. I cannot find definitive figures for June 1943. But we have overall figures of about 1.3 million sent there.

That you cannot face up to what took place at Buchenwald is why you continue with your ad hominems.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Bob » Thu Nov 01, 2012 4:35 pm

Going back to your original list of questions in post #258 you originally said "Is unlikely that Germans blew up already dismantled buildings.." so you there you suggest you are not sure who did blow them up. You mentioned Krema I "They left alleged gas chamber in crematorium I intact (at this time converted to shelter by a few added walls in former alleged gas chamber)"

So it is not unreasonable to mention who blew the Krema II up and Krema I, which you go to say is a "deflect" which is not the case as I am referring to what you said. I think is is also worth noting that deniers use Elie Weisel to supposed show the Soviets blew Krema II up.
Wrong, not "not sure", i am sure that Nazis did not blow them up for the reason reported - to destroy evidence. We are talking about your claim "Nazi did it" so you are again diverting subject to "who did it".
As to the evidence that the Nazis did it

http://en.auschwitz.org/h/index.php?opt" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... mitstart=0

and numerous other sources more reliable than Elie Weisel. This shows how Bob creates nonsenses and then calls me a liar.
This theory has been refuted http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 40#p305589 as completely unfounded and nonsensical and wrong. Nessie´s source did not present any evidence as well, thus Nessie is again ridiculous in his attempt.
"This is utter lie, I in my quote did not say a word about who blew up the roof as this point is clearly irrelevant to this debate, I only refuted Nessie´s falsehood about how Nazis allegedly did it." You claim you said nothing about who blew the roof up, but then claim I was false to say the Nazis did it :? Make up your mind Bob, who blew the Krema II up?
Again Nessie and his primitive fallacy logic, I refuted his unfounded claim that Nazis did it and this according to him means that i automatically suggested that Soviets did it. I in my explanation in this thread I did not say a word about who did it obviously as this was not subject of debate.
You ask "Can Nessie explain to me why Soviets tampered roof in the way to remove original dimensions or to disrupt introduction holes if there were any, if he claims that Soviets affected how the holes looks now?" I answered that by saying the Soviets tampered with other evidence, so they may have tampered with the roof and unless something is clearly untouched, i would have my doubts about it. The Soviets may not have tampered with the roof. Fact is I do not think anyone knows.
4)Question no 4 again dodged, here is again: Can Nessie explain to me why Soviets tampered roof in the way to remove original dimensions or to disrupt introduction holes if there were any, if he claims that Soviets affected how the holes looks now? His dodging is easy to understand, Soviets of course didn´t have any reason to tamper alleged existing introduction holes in the way to disrupt or cover this irrefutable evidence of Nazi crimes, their approach would have been completely the opposite - to document them and preserve in original condition.
You go to make out that the roof of Krema II is "in fact mainly intact and only broken/cracked to a few large blocks or cracked on places where this roof fell on the supporting pillars which pierced the roof." Yet Leuchter describes it as "collapsed or raised to the ground"
Roof is collapsed since is no longer in original position, this is obvious to everybody, but broken/cracked to large slabs and not demolished or "raised (sic!) to the ground" to not be able to use it as evidence as this individual claims. Here are high quality photos http://moranen.blogspot.cz/2008/02/ausc ... osa-1.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What is "raised to the ground"? How something can be raised from the position above (roof) to the ground? This is like saying "box was moved down to the upper floor" :? This individual obviously wanted to use words "razed to the ground" (is english really your native language???) and confused it with words "raised to the ground" without paying even the slightest attention to this contradicting nonsense. Here is what Nessie wanted to say and what he already quoted in one of his previous comment:
Even more incredible is to see what Leuchter writes in his report:

"In Birkenau, Kremas II,III,IV and V are collapsed, or razed to the
ground
. Bunker I (the red house) is gone.""
Nessie dodged to explain what is incredible about it, but now is clear that he connected roof of AHGCH in krema II with the statement "razed to the ground" and this was incredible for him. This individual of course missed that this statement is related to KIV-V, and statement "collapsed" is related to KII-III.

He thus again proved that he doesn´t not have a slightest clue about these alleged exterminating constructions, how they looked or looks now and etc., but no problem for him, he still believes he is able to argue against revisionists or that he has some credit to call them antisemites or neonazis or to claim that he exposed some error or that he found defficiencies in the arguments.
You are not in a position to be able to say conclusively that there are no holes that could not have taken metal and mesh columns that were 70 by 70 cm from the roof as it is now.
I do not have to be in this position, orthodox sources already established there are no such a holes and there were never such holes.
I pointed out to you that Mattogno used the word capacity not theoretical or estimate. They have different meanings. I see you are trying to argue that none mean that 4,756 persons were actually cremated and that the Nazis were just writing down what was possible. I want a translation of the letter.

If you said your house had a capacity of 50 people during a time when loads of people were going to your house, I would say that your capacity is based on actual experience. If you never had any visitors at all and you said your house's capacity was 50, I would wonder why are you bothering to tell me that and would recognise you have estimated.

That Mattogno goes to say "In order to determine to what extent the data provided by these three documents are technologically founded." is in fact him knowing the numbers quoted for cremations are way higher than typhus can account for. So he needs to find a reason to be able to say, those numbers were never reached.

I can see an argument for the figures in June 1943 being an estimated capacity due to the numbers of people being deported to the camp. I cannot find definitive figures for June 1943. But we have overall figures of about 1.3 million sent there.

That you cannot face up to what took place at Buchenwald is why you continue with your ad hominems.
He ignored my refutation, dodged my points and accused me of ad hominems allegedly contained in my comments.

This man cannot count, he does not know calendar months, he is not able to correctly use english words even when this is allegedly his native language, no surprise he does not know what ad hominem means.

He again dodged and ignored most of my points.

Is this man able to answer at least question no. 9? Here again:
Nessie - The one who lied about the samples that were subsequently used in the Zundel trial?

9)Tell me Nessie, how exactly Leuchter lied about the samples? Quote here his lie please.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Nessie » Thu Nov 01, 2012 9:50 pm

I am happier with the orthodox sources which say the Nazi's blew up Krema II. So they are secondary sources and I have not found any primary ones. I am not going to rely on revisionist/denier proof based on Weisel.

Please show me your refutation in the link to post #258. All I see there is you saying " Is unlikely that Germans blew up already dismantled buildings".

For you to come out with this is a nonsense "Again Nessie and his primitive fallacy logic, I refuted his unfounded claim that Nazis did it and this according to him means that i automatically suggested that Soviets did it." Stop mucking around creating a smokescreen to hide your own uncertainties. Please present your evidence as to who blew up Krema II.

Re question 4, how many times have I got to give you the answer? I do not trust the Soviets. They may or indeed may not have tampered with the evidence.

Here, yet again you have a go at me rather than the evidence, which if you had noticed the quotation marks, was a copy and paste of quote by Leuchter, the spelling mistake being left unaltered....

"What is "raised to the ground"? How something can be raised from the position above (roof) to the ground? This is like saying "box was moved down to the upper floor" :? This individual obviously wanted to use words "razed to the ground" (is english really your native language???) and confused it with words "raised to the ground" without paying even the slightest attention to this contradicting nonsense. Here is what Nessie wanted to say and what he already quoted in one of his previous comment:

Even more incredible is to see what Leuchter writes in his report:

"In Birkenau, Kremas II,III,IV and V are collapsed, or razed to the
ground. Bunker I (the red house) is gone.""

If you are going to spend so much time attacking a spelling mistake I say you do not enough to attack my actual arguments. Then you go and get really creative with your attempts manipulate the English language

"Nessie dodged to explain what is incredible about it, but now is clear that he connected roof of AHGCH in krema II with the statement "razed to the ground" and this was incredible for him. This individual of course missed that this statement is related to KIV-V, and statement "collapsed" is related to KII-III."

The list is of Kremas II to V and they have collapsed or been razed to the ground. There is no distinction between them as you try and make out to be. Attack, attack, attack anything attack it! Why not just concentrate on my actual arguments?

I don't care if you think "I do not have to be in this position, orthodox sources already established there are no such a holes and there were never such holes." I disagree with your assertion of no holes. Just because you are sure you are right does not mean I have to go along with you.

Yet you go on to say "He ignored my refutation, dodged my points and accused me of ad hominems allegedly contained in my comments."

What you really mean is I disagree with your arguments, I have answered your questions my way and not to your satisfaction and you do use ad hominems regularly as you attack me and not the argument.

You say "This man cannot count, he does not know calendar months, he is not able to correctly use english words even when this is allegedly his native language, no surprise he does not know what ad hominem means." Well yes, with the numbers and once with number of months I have made mistakes, you have corrected me. You are blaming me for other people's mistakes with the English language. Your English interpretation leaves a lot to be desired. If you do not want to accused of ad hominems attack my arguments and not me.

I am working my way through your huge post up to question 9.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Bob » Thu Nov 01, 2012 11:46 pm

I am happier with the orthodox sources which say the Nazi's blew up Krema II. So they are secondary sources and I have not found any primary ones. I am not going to rely on revisionist/denier proof based on Weisel.

Please show me your refutation in the link to post #258. All I see there is you saying " Is unlikely that Germans blew up already dismantled buildings".
So again points aimed to claim how Nazis destroyed kremas to hide evidence:

His evidence for this claim is missing as usual. Is unlikely that Germans blew up already dismantled buildings up in order to cover crime as is widely repeated since they left intact documentation of central construction office in Auschwitz together with blueprints and orders for alleged killing installations without bothering to destroy them by simply light a match.

They left camp with up to 7,000 (it depends on source) witnesses.

They left alleged gas chamber in crematorium I intact (at this time converted to shelter by a few added walls in former alleged gas chamber)

For you to come out with this is a nonsense "Again Nessie and his primitive fallacy logic, I refuted his unfounded claim that Nazis did it and this according to him means that i automatically suggested that Soviets did it." Stop mucking around creating a smokescreen to hide your own uncertainties. Please present your evidence as to who blew up Krema II.
Diverting the subject again? No. Nessie dodged his exposed fallacy logic.
Re question 4, how many times have I got to give you the answer? I do not trust the Soviets. They may or indeed may not have tampered with the evidence.
But question no 4 is not about some trust, you claimed that Soviets tampered with roof so holes may no be visible or found, your dodging is really obvious, so again:

4)Can Nessie explain to me why Soviets tampered roof in the way to remove original dimensions or to disrupt introduction holes if there were any, if he claims that Soviets affected how the holes looks now?
Here, yet again you have a go at me rather than the evidence, which if you had noticed the quotation marks, was a copy and paste of quote by Leuchter, the spelling mistake being left unaltered....
This is quite false excuse as original sentence clearly states "razed" and not "raised", not Leuchter nor Daniel Keren/Jamie McCarthy used word "raised", here again YOUR quote from the previous page:

Even more incredible is to see what Leuchter writes in his report: "In Birkenau, Kremas II,III,IV and V are collapsed, or razed to the ground. Bunker I (the red house) is gone.""
http://www.shamash.org/holocaust/denial/answers.txt" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But version from your later comment is: "collapsed or raised to the ground"

Thus you clearly did not use copy/paste as you claim, but you retyped it yourself, but thanks to your incompetence and poor memory you included that stupid blunder "raised" instead of "razed" and you forgot also comma between "collapsed" and "or". This serves as irrefutable proofs of your lie how this mistake allegedly came from your source and you left it unaltered. Thus you know very well that you did not use copy/paste but you falsely used this excuse to shift responsibility for this falsehood on your source as you usually do it. What is bad for you, in this case you cannot obfuscate your lie as usual, dear sir, you are once for all proven LIAR thanks to your own blunders!

What I find really fascinating is that I quoted original sentence even with emphasis, Nessie then quoted it too when he responded to it, but despite this he created this silly excuse of how this mistake came from his source, this proves once for all that he has some really serious problem or that he does not read my comments.

This case reminds me how poor Soviets or Poles wrongly demolished wall into washroom in crematorium I, thus enlarged alleged gas chamber by some four meters, and in this new and never existing room they created four introduction holes for Zyklon B which are allegedly genuine and even confirmed as genuine by flawed report of Mazal (edited - error in name) et al.. But as is known, this room was smaller, thus these holes are in the wrong locations and their blunder thus serves as a proof of how these holes never existed in the original room.

In fact, your own source is incompetent too, original quote from Leuchter report is: In Birkenau, Kremas II, III, IV and V are collapsed or razed to the foundations; (Leuchter Reports Critical edition, 2nd edition, 2005, p. 36) - and foundations and ground are two different things.
If you are going to spend so much time attacking a spelling mistake I say you do not enough to attack my actual arguments.
False, I dissected every of your "argument" and I pay attention to every word.

And you are also wrong in the next point, this is not about attack on alleged mistake, this is about not being capable to recognize that your mistake resulted in the clear nonsense, you can miss spelling mistake, no problem, but not contradiction and falsehood created by this mistake, i.e. - roof was raised to the ground - instead of - roof was razed to the round. Fundamental problem of course is that there is not a single word about roof razed to the ground, but general statement related to crematoria buildings.
The list is of Kremas II to V and they have collapsed or been razed to the ground. There is no distinction between them as you try and make out to be. Attack, attack, attack anything attack it! Why not just concentrate on my actual arguments?
There is no distinction according to you, thank you for admission that your simply INVENTED your claim because there is no distinction according to your own admission! This was no problem for you, so you opportunistically connected together what suited your belief and current needs, i.e. KII roof +"razed to the ground". Contrary to this silly approach, probably every educated human being interested in the subject is able to see the distinction because the knowledge of how these construction sites looks now is simply basic, so is clear that collapsed is related to KII-III and "razed to the ground" to KIV-V.

What is more, your excuse is again lie, this distinction is stated in quoted statements from Leuchter and YOUR own quoted source:

"it's collapsed. (KII)" Leuchter admits that the roof of the gas chamber of Krema III was all blown up and collapsed, and that Krema IV and V are gone except for the foundation!
http://www.shamash.org/holocaust/denial/answers.txt" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So your next false excuse is again proof about how your are not even capable of reading own sources and proof of your lie.
Why not just concentrate on my actual arguments?
Sir, this is exactly what i am doing here all the time!
I don't care if you think "I do not have to be in this position, orthodox sources already established there are no such a holes and there were never such holes." I disagree with your assertion of no holes. Just because you are sure you are right does not mean I have to go along with you.
Again your "ability" to grasp a content of comments, so again:

Nessie - You are not in a position to be able to say conclusively that there are no holes that could not have taken metal and mesh columns that were 70 by 70 cm from the roof as it is now.

Bob - I do not have to be in this position, orthodox sources already established there are no such a holes and there were never such holes.


So my answer is clearly related to 70cm holes, and as already known, there no such a holes even according to orthodox sources. But this individual "disagree"!
You are blaming me for other people's mistakes with the English language.
You again repeated your lie, mistake was your and not from your source!
If you do not want to accused of ad hominems attack my arguments and not me.
As proven, I am attacking ONLY your arguments and your approach.
I am working my way through your huge post up to question 9.
My post is not huge, I am only wasting time with using of quote tags, something completely unknown to you as you are mixing my quotes with yours and your comments are really messy and hard to follow.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Feel free to drop any effort to respond to my points and next questions, your credibility is completely off once for all and despite this I already know quite well that you again lied about Leuchter in the respect to the question 9). But don´t worry, you are in the good company here, they will not blame you for your lying.
Last edited by Bob on Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:55 am, edited 1 time in total.

Jerzy Ulicki-Rek
Poster
Posts: 103
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 9:26 am

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Jerzy Ulicki-Rek » Fri Nov 02, 2012 1:46 am

Bob
I do admire your patience.

Jerzy

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Nessie » Fri Nov 02, 2012 9:35 am

Bob, the best you have about who blew up the Kremas is this "s unlikely that Germans blew up already dismantled buildings", so you don't know for sure, you have a hypothesis, that is all. That is further shown by your dodge of my simple question of who blew them up? This is another example of you attacking me rather than providing an answer yourself. I realise that when you are stuck for an answer you like to smokescreen and attack me instead.

Question - 4)Can Nessie explain to me why Soviets tampered roof in the way to remove original dimensions or to disrupt introduction holes if there were any, if he claims that Soviets affected how the holes looks now?

Answer - No. Though since you are suggesting the Nazis did not blow up the Kremas and you talk of how they altered Krema I, who knows what they got up to. Do you? No of course you do not as yet again you have no answer and so go on the attack instead.

Here I put my hands to to my mistake "Thus you clearly did not use copy/paste as you claim, but you retyped it yourself, but thanks to your incompetence and poor memory you included that stupid blunder "raised" instead of "razed" and you forgot also comma between "collapsed" and "or". This serves as irrefutable proofs of your lie how this mistake allegedly came from your source and you left it unaltered" No lie, a mistake. I was in a rush to go out last night, could not remember or find the original quote and so thinking I had copied and pasted it, went with that. Sorry. That you do spend so much time on that rather than answering questions such as who did blow Krema II up, again shows you have no answer and attack instead.

This is a nice use of language to sidestep the real issue of all the damage to the Krema II roof. "So my answer is clearly related to 70cm holes, and as already known, there no such a holes even according to orthodox sources. But this individual "disagree"!" Who says there are going to be perfect holes after the roof has been blown up? Are there any 10cm holes, or 90cm, 50cm? There are no distinctive holes at all after the destruction of the roof.

This is not true "As proven, I am attacking ONLY your arguments and your approach.". The most common of which is to proclaim a lie when I make a mistake or disagree with you.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Nessie » Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:48 am

Back to post #269.

"5)He does not know, again quite revealing. Can Nessie tell me how this "whole structure" (he has not a slightest clue about the construction of this alleged device) which didn´t has any fittings on the floor - as he suggested - survived mass of alleged victims?"

How are you so certain that there are no fittings on the floor? The building was stripped by the Nazis, not disputed by you and then blown up, by whom you are not sure. There is no trace of the column, so it is not surprising there is no trace of its fittings. Since we do not know for certain how it worked we do not know for sure how , if indeed it did survive the mass of people in the chamber.

"6)Not precisely no, this individual has not a slightest clue about how even the orthodox sources (Pelt, Mazal et. al.) already established that there are no alleged introduction holes with the side of 70cm and he believes that they will be maybe discovered!"

Are there any 20cm, 80cm, 90cm holes there? I say from what I have read and seen it is inconclusive. Maybe further research will shed further light on this topic.

"7)So no idea, yet he claims that "The blue colour is explained by the length of time clothing was deloused compared to the time people spent in the chambers being gassed."!"

You ignore my source for that conclusion is you. http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=17596" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and is agreed upon elsewhere

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/polish/ ... ction.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"A later investigation, carried out by a G. Rudolf (4), confirmed the high concentrations of cyanogen compounds in the facilities for clothes disinsectization. This may be so since, being undamaged, these facilities were not exposed to the action of weather conditions, especially rainfall. Moreover, it is known that the duration of disinsectization was relatively long, about 24 hours for each batch of clothes (probably even longer), whereas the execution with Zyklon B in the gas chambers took, according to the statement of the Auschwitz Camp Commander Rudolf Hoess (7) and the data presented by Sehn (6), only about 20 minutes. It should also be emphasized that the ruins of these chambers have been constantly exposed to the action of precipitation and it can be estimated, on the basis of the climatological records, that in these last 45 years or so they have been rinsed rather thoroughly by a column of water at least 35 m in height (!"

"8)So again, faced with simple question he dodged my question and answered it by question which his again full of falsehoods! So again: What is your explanation of the fact that according to analysis of Leuchter´s/Rudolf´s samples (experiment samples included) conducted by Alpha Analytic Laboratories/Fresenius Institute/Institute for Environmental Analytics - alleged homicidal gas chambers are practically without reproducible cyanide traces which are in order of magnitude of those found in washroom, bavarian house or inmate barracks (in all cases only up to 9,6 mg/kg) but delousing chambers showed concentrations up to 13,5g/kg?"

See above (7) for one reason. Also here

http://www.whale.to/b/krakow.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

which includes a response from Dr. Markiewicz to Mark Webber

"Now, in the light of letters and publications coming to us from different countries, I have arrived at the conclusion that our investigations aiming at the confirmation, if possible, of the use of cyanic preparations in the rooms that survived whole or only in the form of ruins, were rather preliminary in nature and incomplete"

That comes right back to my claim not enough work has been done to study Krema II's remains.

"9)Tell me Nessie, how exactly Leuchter lied about the samples? Quote here his lie please."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_A._Leuchter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Lab manager James Roth swore under oath to the results at the trial. It was only after he got off the stand that Roth learned what the trial was about. In an interview for Morris' film, Roth states that cyanide would have formed an extremely fine layer on the walls, to the depth of one-tenth of a human hair. Leuchter had taken samples of indeterminate thickness (he is seen in Morris' film hammering at the bricks with a rock hammer). Not informed of this, Roth had pulverized the entire samples, thus severely diluting the cyanide-containing layer of each sample with an indeterminate amount of brick, varying for each sample. Roth offers the analogy that the tests were like "analyzing paint on a wall by analyzing the timber that's behind it."[2]"

Lastly I see Leuchter is not included in this list

"As for criticism of expertise backed up by proper diploma, I will leave aside the falsehood which is even quite clear exposed above, here will be the best expose the double standard and intellectual dishonesty of this Nessie:

Jean Claude Pressac - pharmacist
Deborah Lipstadt - professor of modern jewish studies
Robert Jan Van Pelt - architectural historian
Werner Wagner - social worker
John C. Zimmerman - associate professor, accountant (his source for history, cremations and cremation technology)
Jan Markiewicz - technical testing specialist (his source for chemistry)"

which does not contain anyone with a forensics or scenes of crime qualification or experience. That is what is needed to examine the remains of Krema II. Instead Leuchter, who lied during the Zundel trial

http://www.shamash.org/holocaust/denial/answers.txt" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"We discover, then, that neither California nor North Carolina have consulted with Leuchter regarding their gas chambers. Leuchter was incapable of even getting the names of the wardens right, and clearly lying about his "professional" relationships with them."

and one recollection of Leuchter

"..he vaguely recalled a telephone conversation between him and a gentleman professing to be an expert on execution chambers. Mr. Rice further states that the gentleman called him for the purpose of selling a lethal injection machine..."

and had to serve two years probation for serving without a licence

On October 24, 1990 The New York Times described him as "self-proclaimed execution expert and manufacturer of death machinery" who "was charged today in a Middlesex County District Court with fraudulently practicing engineering."[12] It quoted Dr. Edward A. Brunner, chairman of the anesthesia department at Northwestern University Medical School, as saying Leuchter's lethal injection system would indeed paralyze a condemned criminal with Pavulon, but far from being humane this paralysis would merely stop the prisoner from screaming at the "extreme pain in the form of a severe burning sensation" caused by the potassium chloride injection. (Potassium chloride is commonly used in judicial execution through lethal injection.) A subsequent article in the June 13, 1991 edition of New York Times details his agreement with prosecutors to "serve two years probation for practicing engineering without a license."[13]

and was known for his lack of credibility

"...the Virginia court decided the credibility of Leuchter's affidavit was limited because Leuchter was "the refused contractor who bid to replace the electrodes in the Virginia chair."[20]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_A._Leuchter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Nessie » Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:49 am

Jerzy Ulicki-Rek wrote:Bob
I do admire your patience.

Jerzy
So do I. I have also been complemented on my patience in dealing with Bob. :D
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

Jerzy Ulicki-Rek
Poster
Posts: 103
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 9:26 am

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Jerzy Ulicki-Rek » Fri Nov 02, 2012 12:30 pm

Bob
"Never ever get in to a discussion with an idiot:First he will pull you down to his level and then and then will beat with experience"

Jerzy

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Bob » Fri Nov 02, 2012 12:47 pm

Bob, the best you have about who blew up the Kremas is this "s unlikely that Germans blew up already dismantled buildings", so you don't know for sure, you have a hypothesis, that is all. That is further shown by your dodge of my simple question of who blew them up? This is another example of you attacking me rather than providing an answer yourself. I realise that when you are stuck for an answer you like to smokescreen and attack me instead.

Question - 4)Can Nessie explain to me why Soviets tampered roof in the way to remove original dimensions or to disrupt introduction holes if there were any, if he claims that Soviets affected how the holes looks now?

Answer - No. Though since you are suggesting the Nazis did not blow up the Kremas and you talk of how they altered Krema I, who knows what they got up to. Do you? No of course you do not as yet again you have no answer and so go on the attack instead.
4) Answer is NO, good, closed.

I am not only suggesting, I deny that Nazi blew them up because of reason - to hide evidence - if you able to invent something backed up or plausible, feel free to tell me.
Here I put my hands to to my mistake "Thus you clearly did not use copy/paste as you claim, but you retyped it yourself, but thanks to your incompetence and poor memory you included that stupid blunder "raised" instead of "razed" and you forgot also comma between "collapsed" and "or". This serves as irrefutable proofs of your lie how this mistake allegedly came from your source and you left it unaltered" No lie, a mistake. I was in a rush to go out last night, could not remember or find the original quote and so thinking I had copied and pasted it, went with that. Sorry. That you do spend so much time on that rather than answering questions such as who did blow Krema II up, again shows you have no answer and attack instead.
You call it mistake, no surprise, I call it a lie, you knew and you know that you did not use copy/paste, you completely retyped it yourself, you shifted this blunder on your source even when you knew it, this is called a lie sir. When I see someone is lying, you can bet i will spend time to expose it. Thus you are a proven liar.
This is a nice use of language to sidestep the real issue of all the damage to the Krema II roof. "So my answer is clearly related to 70cm holes, and as already known, there no such a holes even according to orthodox sources. But this individual "disagree"!" Who says there are going to be perfect holes after the roof has been blown up? Are there any 10cm holes, or 90cm, 50cm? There are no distinctive holes at all after the destruction of the roof.
At this time we are delaing with 70cm holes, so 10cm 90cm or 50cm are irrelevant, since you still claim that there are somewhere some 70cm holes. Re read thread.
How are you so certain that there are no fittings on the floor? The building was stripped by the Nazis, not disputed by you and then blown up, by whom you are not sure. There is no trace of the column, so it is not surprising there is no trace of its fittings. Since we do not know for certain how it worked we do not know for sure how , if indeed it did survive the mass of people in the chamber.
Nessie disputed their existence himself - "they may have not needed fitting at all.". Floor is still visible as well, namely under alleged opening 1, the only way how to fasten such construction during 40´s was to place wooden plates into the concrete during the construction like in the case of lamps on the ceiling, feel free to show these traces in the floor to me.
Are there any 20cm, 80cm, 90cm holes there? I say from what I have read and seen it is inconclusive. Maybe further research will shed further light on this topic.
No, there are only irregular holes with various dimensions and cracks.
"7)So no idea, yet he claims that "The blue colour is explained by the length of time clothing was deloused compared to the time people spent in the chambers being gassed."!"

You ignore my source for that conclusion is you. viewtopic.php?f=39&t=17596
Where exactly is my quote suggesting something like this if you claim that I was your source?
and is agreed upon elsewhere

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/polish/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... ction.html

"A later investigation, carried out by a G. Rudolf (4), confirmed the high concentrations of cyanogen compounds in the facilities for clothes disinsectization. This may be so since, being undamaged, these facilities were not exposed to the action of weather conditions, especially rainfall. Moreover, it is known that the duration of disinsectization was relatively long, about 24 hours for each batch of clothes (probably even longer), whereas the execution with Zyklon B in the gas chambers took, according to the statement of the Auschwitz Camp Commander Rudolf Hoess (7) and the data presented by Sehn (6), only about 20 minutes. It should also be emphasized that the ruins of these chambers have been constantly exposed to the action of precipitation and it can be estimated, on the basis of the climatological records, that in these last 45 years or so they have been rinsed rather thoroughly by a column of water at least 35 m in height (!"
Again: But as we know, this is simple nonsense as everybody can see today on the walls or as proven by analysis of samples taken by Leuchter or Rudolf. It was already established at the time of this report that stable iron cyanide compounds (namely Prussian Blue) are practically not affected by weather or elements during the decades. (J.M. Kape, E.C. Mills, Tranp. Inst. Met. Finish., 35 (1958), pp. 353-384; ibid., 59 (1981), pp. 35-39.)

I repeat, iron cyanides (or metal cyanide compounds) are the most stable and practically not affected by weather and etc. Is irrelevant how long did it take to allegedly kill peoples (your data are false) for this subject is relevant only how long the walls were exposed to HCN. So again:

7)Tell me Nessie, how much time gas spent in contact with the walls in AHGCH, and how much time in the case of delousing chamber?

Your answer - No idea, and you do nto know explanation. Closed.
See above (7) for one reason. Also here

http://www.whale.to/b/krakow.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

which includes a response from Dr. Markiewicz to Mark Webber

"Now, in the light of letters and publications coming to us from different countries, I have arrived at the conclusion that our investigations aiming at the confirmation, if possible, of the use of cyanic preparations in the rooms that survived whole or only in the form of ruins, were rather preliminary in nature and incomplete"

That comes right back to my claim not enough work has been done to study Krema II's remains.
False, there are more reports refuting your excuse.

So again: What is your explanation of the fact that according to analysis of Leuchter´s/Rudolf´s samples (experiment samples included) conducted by Alpha Analytic Laboratories/Fresenius Institute/Institute for Environmental Analytics - alleged homicidal gas chambers are practically without reproducible cyanide traces which are in order of magnitude of those found in washroom, bavarian house or inmate barracks (in all cases only up to 9,6 mg/kg) but delousing chambers showed concentrations up to 13,5g/kg?"
"9)Tell me Nessie, how exactly Leuchter lied about the samples? Quote here his lie please."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_A._Leuchter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Lab manager James Roth swore under oath to the results at the trial. It was only after he got off the stand that Roth learned what the trial was about. In an interview for Morris' film, Roth states that cyanide would have formed an extremely fine layer on the walls, to the depth of one-tenth of a human hair. Leuchter had taken samples of indeterminate thickness (he is seen in Morris' film hammering at the bricks with a rock hammer). Not informed of this, Roth had pulverized the entire samples, thus severely diluting the cyanide-containing layer of each sample with an indeterminate amount of brick, varying for each sample. Roth offers the analogy that the tests were like "analyzing paint on a wall by analyzing the timber that's behind it."[2]"
I didn´t want to see evidence for lies of Roth, I already know this, but my question was:

"9)Tell me Nessie, how exactly Leuchter lied about the samples? Quote here his lie please."

Please, consider your possible answer that Leucher allegedly lied about samples as an answer under oath to bring some seriousness to this case. In the case of your false accusation, you will be considered as a perjurer. Good luck!
which does not contain anyone with a forensics or scenes of crime qualification or experience. That is what is needed to examine the remains of Krema II.
Thanks for admission, yet you have no problem to claim that homicidal gas chamber/s existed and you are using these peoples as a sources!
Instead Leuchter, who lied during the Zundel trial
Not so fast with your dodging, I want to see firstly your proof and quote for his alleged previous lie about samples, you are a proven liar, now I want to demonstrate if your are even perjurer, so I am waiting for your answer to question 9. Nessie again dodged answer and produced new accusation of lying about Leuchter, what i find it quite absurd when Nessie is a self-proven liar.
and was known for his lack of credibility
Again refutation:

The Atlantic Monthly (Feb. 1990)
New York Times article (October 13, 1990)
Stephen Trombley, The Execution Protocol, Crown Publishers, New York 1992, p. 8.
Letter of Bill Armontrout, warden, (Prison in Jefferson City, Missouri.)


In short - before the Zundel trial and before the smear campaign, nobody has problem with Leuchter as far as i know, after this, he became "not credible and without a expertise". Typical situation when believers are dealing with revisionists or with someone who is disputing holocaust.

Again to expose double standard:

Jean Claude Pressac - pharmacist
Deborah Lipstadt - professor of modern jewish studies
Robert Jan Van Pelt - architectural historian
Werner Wagner - social worker
John C. Zimmerman - associate professor, accountant (his source for history, cremations and cremation technology)
Jan Markiewicz - technical testing specialist (his source for chemistry)"


Thanks for your confirmation, that you and your sources are not able to refute not even Leuchter as is clear when they are attacking him only for alleged missing expertise, when this - in fact - is not even the slightest problem in the case of "believers" Pelt, Pressac, Lipstadt, Markiewicz, Hilberg and etc.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Nessie » Fri Nov 02, 2012 6:01 pm

This reads like one of your play on words "I am not only suggesting, I deny that Nazi blew them up because of reason - to hide evidence - if you able to invent something backed up or plausible, feel free to tell me." Does that mean you deny the Nazis blew up Krema II full stop? Or do you deny they blew up Krema II to hide evidence, but they did it for another reason? How can you invent something that is backed up? I presume you mean backed up by by evidence? I can give you loads of plausible reasons for the Nazis blowing up Krema II and indeed why they needed so many retorts at Birkenau.

As much as you claim "You call it mistake, no surprise, I call it a lie, you knew and you know that you did not use copy/paste, you completely retyped it yourself, you shifted this blunder on your source even when you knew it, this is called a lie sir. When I see someone is lying, you can bet i will spend time to expose it. Thus you are a proven liar." I made a mistake, explained what I had done that caused the mistake and as soon as as you pointed out what I did wrong, I accepted it and apologised. There are not many (if any) who behave that way during Holocaust debates. You chose to call mistakes lies as you prefer to attack the person rather than their argument. It is it quite something you spend so much time going over a mistake, which could have been pointed out in one paragraph with a link to the original, yet dodge who blew up Krema II and why so many retorts.

This is wrong "At this time we are delaing with 70cm holes, so 10cm 90cm or 50cm are irrelevant, since you still claim that there are somewhere some 70cm holes. Re read thread." Due to the destruction of Krema II I have pointed out that finding a specifically sized hole that is a perfect size is nigh on impossible, unless you get a forensic scenes of crime study. That way you have the right experts doing the right job.

You said "Nessie disputed their existence himself - "they may have not needed fitting at all.". Floor is still visible as well, namely under alleged opening 1, the only way how to fasten such construction during 40´s was to place wooden plates into the concrete during the construction like in the case of lamps on the ceiling, feel free to show these traces in the floor to me. Please evidence that there was only way to fix somethign to concrete in the 1940s.

"No, there are only irregular holes with various dimensions and cracks." Exactly, the roof was blown up, so it is not surprising there is no definite trace of precise 70 by 70cm holes.

Regarding blue on the walls in clothing delousing chambers and homicidal ones, there is no specific quote as you ask for "Where exactly is my quote suggesting something like this if you claim that I was your source?" I realised the difference between chambers during the debate. The whole thread is where I base my claim.

"I repeat, iron cyanides (or metal cyanide compounds) are the most stable and practically not affected by weather and etc. Is irrelevant how long did it take to allegedly kill peoples (your data are false) for this subject is relevant only how long the walls were exposed to HCN.

Yet here http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/polish/ ... -research/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sample Initial concentration Concentration after flushing with water

(CN~ in µg/kg) (CN~ in µg/kg) Loss, in %
----------------------------------------------------------------
I 160 28 82.5
II 1200 112 90.7

That is a big loss. Further losses shown here

"After a lapse of one month the concentration of hydrogen cyanide and its combinations in the materials examined decreased on the average by 56% (from 28% to 86%). An apparent rise in the concentration occurred only in single samples. That is so because the samples used for examination were not always the same. When they had been used up in the first run, they had to be replaced by new samples taken from the same bigger lumps of material. This supports the thesis on the local binding of hydrogen cyanide. "

The present study shows that in spite of the passage of a considerable period of time (over 45 years) in the walls of the facilities which once were in contact with hydrogen cyanide the vestigial amounts of the combinations of this constituent of Zyklon B have been preserved. This is also true of the ruins of the former gas chambers. The cyanide compounds occur in the building materials only locally, in the places where the conditions arose for their formation and persistence for such a long time.

The present study shows that in spite of the passage of a considerable period of time (over 45 years) in the walls of the facilities which once were in contact with hydrogen cyanide the vestigial amounts of the combinations of this constituent of Zyklon B have been preserved. This is also true of the ruins of the former gas chambers. The cyanide compounds occur in the building materials only locally, in the places where the conditions arose for their formation and persistence for such a long time.

There is further evidence from that report regarding this "So again: What is your explanation of the fact that according to analysis of Leuchter´s/Rudolf´s samples (experiment samples included) conducted by Alpha Analytic Laboratories/Fresenius Institute/Institute for Environmental Analytics - alleged homicidal gas chambers are practically without reproducible cyanide traces which are in order of magnitude of those found in washroom, bavarian house or inmate barracks (in all cases only up to 9,6 mg/kg) but delousing chambers showed concentrations up to 13,5g/kg?"

"In his reasoning Leuchter (2) claims that the vestigial amounts of cyanide combinations detected by him in the materials from the chamber ruins are residues left after fumigations carried out in the Camp "once, long ago"(Item 14.004 of the Report). This is refuted by the negative results of the examination of the control samples from living quarters, which are said to have been subjected to a single gassing, and the fact that in the period of fumigation of the Camp in connection with a typhoid epidemic in mid-1942 there were still no crematoria in the Birkenau Camp. The first crematorium (Crematorium II) was put to use as late as 15 March 1943 and the others several months later. "

Nice twist here "

I didn´t want to see evidence for lies of Roth, I already know this, but my question was:

"9)Tell me Nessie, how exactly Leuchter lied about the samples? Quote here his lie please."

Please, consider your possible answer that Leucher allegedly lied about samples as an answer under oath to bring some seriousness to this case. In the case of your false accusation, you will be considered as a perjurer. Good luck!"

Where is your evidence Roth lied? Leuchter lied during the trial as shown in post #293. and he lied about the way the sample was collected.

This is another example of your twisting words "Thanks for admission, yet you have no problem to claim that homicidal gas chamber/s existed and you are using these peoples as a sources!". I say Krema II was used as a gas chamber because of the evidence of eye witnesses. I say a forensic scenes of crime examination of the building is needed instead of others such as Leuchter examining it.

Ad hominem "now I want to demonstrate if your are even perjurer" as perjury can only be committed during a trial or other hearing whilst under oath. This speaks volumes as to my supposed lies "Nessie is a self-proven liar". Self proven? What you really mean that you have misrepresented me, made up quotes, attributed others evidence to me which you disagree with and called mistakes lies to make me out to be a liar. By your standards Leuchter is a liar. See more here http://www.nizkor.org/faqs/leuchter/leu ... aq-22.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As for his references,

"The Atlantic Monthly (Feb. 1990)
New York Times article (October 13, 1990)
Stephen Trombley, The Execution Protocol, Crown Publishers, New York 1992, p. 8.
Letter of Bill Armontrout, warden, (Prison in Jefferson City, Missouri.)"

I would like to see what they actually said. I would like to know if he still considered to be " an American Federal Court qualified expert in execution technology". No one had a problem with him before as no one had probably ever heard of him. He came to light with his evidence at the Zundel trial and not unreasonably his evidence and credentials were checked.

As for this list

"Jean Claude Pressac - pharmacist
Deborah Lipstadt - professor of modern jewish studies
Robert Jan Van Pelt - architectural historian
Werner Wagner - social worker
John C. Zimmerman - associate professor, accountant (his source for history, cremations and cremation technology)
Jan Markiewicz - technical testing specialist (his source for chemistry)"

I am sure they all their place but I am arguing for a forensic scenes of crime examination of Krema II they are not teh right people. Neither is Leuchter.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

Jerzy Ulicki-Rek
Poster
Posts: 103
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 9:26 am

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Jerzy Ulicki-Rek » Fri Nov 02, 2012 6:42 pm

Nessie..
What about this man? :)
Is dr of chemistry from Max Planck institute good enough for you? :)

Image


Jerzy

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Bob » Fri Nov 02, 2012 7:36 pm

This reads like one of your play on words "I am not only suggesting, I deny that Nazi blew them up because of reason - to hide evidence - if you able to invent something backed up or plausible, feel free to tell me." Does that mean you deny the Nazis blew up Krema II full stop? Or do you deny they blew up Krema II to hide evidence, but they did it for another reason? How can you invent something that is backed up? I presume you mean backed up by by evidence? I can give you loads of plausible reasons for the Nazis blowing up Krema II...
Correct, your other claims are your own nonsenses. You did not back up anything, i do not see any other explanation.
You chose to call mistakes lies
Your approach is absurd, with this approach every lie can becalled a mistake. You knew that you did not use copy/paste, thus you clearly made false statement despite better knowledge, thus you are liar. Period.
This is wrong "At this time we are delaing with 70cm holes, so 10cm 90cm or 50cm are irrelevant, since you still claim that there are somewhere some 70cm holes. Re read thread." Due to the destruction of Krema II I have pointed out that finding a specifically sized hole that is a perfect size is nigh on impossible, unless you get a forensic scenes of crime study. That way you have the right experts doing the right job.
Again dodging, there no 70cm holes, and hole in the iron reinforced concrete cannot be shrunken by explosion as this man claims, thus closed.
You said "Nessie disputed their existence himself - "they may have not needed fitting at all.". Floor is still visible as well, namely under alleged opening 1, the only way how to fasten such construction during 40´s was to place wooden plates into the concrete during the construction like in the case of lamps on the ceiling, feel free to show these traces in the floor to me. Please evidence that there was only way to fix somethign to concrete in the 1940s.
This is clear to all who ever saw these rooms in Auschwitz or at least photos, ceiling is full of wooden plates casted in the concrete in morgues of crematorium II or crematorium I to which the lamps were fitted so we have evidence of how they fitted these things to concrete since there was not other technology like today. For this individual, Germar Rudolf who used hypothesis of fitting based on cement instead of wood, but principle remains the same:

Regarding the alleged fake showers, it should be kept in mind that by the 1940s no proper means for drilling holes into concrete had been invented and that no neat plastic dowels existed yet. There was therefore only one way to fasten installations to bare concrete walls and ceilings: conical pieces of wood were cast into the concrete, onto which electrical lines, lamps, water pipes, and other installations were screwed tightly.

If carried out after completion of the building, holes would have been chiseled into the concrete, and the hoop irons would have been cast in cement filling these holes, see Fig. 46 (p. 113). In both cases, a removal of such cast-in hoop irons would have been impossible. All one could do is cut them off with a saw or a welding torch.270 Hence, if any introduction device was ever installed in these morgues, traces of such hoop irons must still be present.

Drawing of R. Faßbender, a certified building engineer.

Regarding blue on the walls in clothing delousing chambers and homicidal ones, there is no specific quote as you ask for "Where exactly is my quote suggesting something like this if you claim that I was your source?" I realised the difference between chambers during the debate. The whole thread is where I base my claim.
In the other words, there is not even one single quote from me suggesting something like this, thus again false statement.
Yet here http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/polish/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... -research/

Sample Initial concentration Concentration after flushing with water

(CN~ in µg/kg) (CN~ in µg/kg) Loss, in %
----------------------------------------------------------------
I 160 28 82.5
II 1200 112 90.7

That is a big loss. Further losses shown here

"After a lapse of one month the concentration of hydrogen cyanide and its combinations in the materials examined decreased on the average by 56% (from 28% to 86%). An apparent rise in the concentration occurred only in single samples. That is so because the samples used for examination were not always the same. When they had been used up in the first run, they had to be replaced by new samples taken from the same bigger lumps of material. This supports the thesis on the local binding of hydrogen cyanide. "
Nessie does not know that his flawed polish scientists used Epstein´s method to measure cyanide content, thus stable metal cyanides are dissociated during this procedure and this method is insensitive to them and does not permit detection of iron cyanides. Laboratories which analyzed samples from Leuchter/Rudolf used commonly used standard method to measure total cyanide content - i.e. sensitive to all cyanides.

Thus once for all, Nessie proved that he has not a slightest idea about what he is talking about.
There is further evidence from that report regarding this "So again: What is your explanation of the fact that according to analysis of Leuchter´s/Rudolf´s samples (experiment samples included) conducted by Alpha Analytic Laboratories/Fresenius Institute/Institute for Environmental Analytics - alleged homicidal gas chambers are practically without reproducible cyanide traces which are in order of magnitude of those found in washroom, bavarian house or inmate barracks (in all cases only up to 9,6 mg/kg) but delousing chambers showed concentrations up to 13,5g/kg?"

"In his reasoning Leuchter (2) claims that the vestigial amounts of cyanide combinations detected by him in the materials from the chamber ruins are residues left after fumigations carried out in the Camp "once, long ago"(Item 14.004 of the Report). This is refuted by the negative results of the examination of the control samples from living quarters, which are said to have been subjected to a single gassing, and the fact that in the period of fumigation of the Camp in connection with a typhoid epidemic in mid-1942 there were still no crematoria in the Birkenau Camp. The first crematorium (Crematorium II) was put to use as late as 15 March 1943 and the others several months later.
Leuchter - 1,3 mg/kg CN - washroom of crematorium I.
Rudolf - 0,1 to 9,6 mg/kg - inmate barracks or bavarian house.

That one single gassing can produce cyanide traces is confirmed by your Polish scientist and by their flawed report thus they contradicted own "refutation" of Leuchter´s claim:

0-0.028 mg/kg - Block 11 (place where allegedly only single first homicidal gassing took place)
0-0.004 mg/kg - dwelling quarters

Thus refuted Nessie. Here again: 8)What is your explanation of the fact that according to analysis of Leuchter´s/Rudolf´s samples (experiment samples included) conducted by Alpha Analytic Laboratories/Fresenius Institute/Institute for Environmental Analytics - alleged homicidal gas chambers are practically without reproducible cyanide traces which are in order of magnitude of those found in washroom, bavarian house or inmate barracks (in all cases only up to 9,6 mg/kg) but delousing chambers showed concentrations up to 13,5g/kg?"
Nice twist here "

I didn´t want to see evidence for lies of Roth, I already know this, but my question was:

"9)Tell me Nessie, how exactly Leuchter lied about the samples? Quote here his lie please."

Please, consider your possible answer that Leucher allegedly lied about samples as an answer under oath to bring some seriousness to this case. In the case of your false accusation, you will be considered as a perjurer. Good luck!"

Where is your evidence Roth lied?
Do you mean your twist? I agree!

Roth during trial under oath - “In porous materials such as brick or mortar, the Prussian blue [recte: hydrogen cyanide] could go fairly deep as long as the surface stayed open, but as the Prussian blue formed, it was possible that it would seal the porous material and stop the penetration.”

Roth during his interview in movie Mr. Death as summarized by Pelt - “Roth explained that cyanide will react on the surface of brick or plaster, penetrating the material not more than 10 microns, or 0.01 mm, or one tenth the thickness of a human hair […]. In other words, if one wants to analyze the cyanide concentration in a brick sample, one should take a representative sample of the surface, 10 microns thick, and no more.”

Thus he is perjurer or "only" liar. This later lie from movie is refuted by analysis of Rudolf´s samples or by simply looking on the walls to see how cyanides penetrated entire wall from inside to outside. Poor Roth wanted to save his life and career when he saw what happened to Leuchter, but fact that he is liar remains despite extenuating circumstances.
Leuchter lied during the trial as shown in post #293. and he lied about the way the sample was collected.
Nessie, my last try, and I request your answer, do not dodge it for fourth time of five time, prove your serious accusation about Leuchter:

"9)Tell me Nessie, how exactly Leuchter lied about the samples? Quote here his lie please."
I say Krema II was used as a gas chamber because of the evidence of eye witnesses.
Quote this evidence here or forget it if you you already dodged question above, in that case i will not bother with you anymore.
Ad hominem "now I want to demonstrate if your are even perjurer" as perjury can only be committed during a trial or other hearing whilst under oath.
Nessie still has no clue about what ad hominem means. Exactly, I stated that you can consider it as a statement under oath to bring some seriousness to this case, thanks for confirmation.
Self proven?
Yes, because of your own blunder which exposed that you lied about that mistake, thus you are a self-proven liar.
I would like to see what they actually said.
Read provided sources. (Rudolf Report, 2010 p. 13)
No one had a problem with him before as no one had probably ever heard of him. He came to light with his evidence at the Zundel trial and not unreasonably his evidence and credentials were checked.
How many times some official institution or court or media ever bothered to check/complain about credentials of exterminationists like Hilberg, Pelt and the others who served as an witnesses during trials? Name these cases please.
I am sure they all their place but I am arguing for a forensic scenes of crime examination of Krema II they are not teh right people. Neither is Leuchter.
Thus gassing is not proven thanks to his own admission since not even one single such report from exterminationist was ever produced, interesting.

False, Leuchter is the only one from this list who has expertise in devices used for capital punishment, i.e. gas chambers, this was confirmed by references above. Nessie is gain handily refuted.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Nessie » Fri Nov 02, 2012 9:05 pm

So you deny the Nazis blew up Krema II to hide evidence. Please evidence that claim. I am not interested in your theorising of any hypothesis, just evidence.

I know you have difficulty differentiating between lies and mistakes "Your approach is absurd, with this approach every lie can becalled a mistake. You knew that you did not use copy/paste, thus you clearly made false statement despite better knowledge, thus you are liar. Period." I could not remember where I had got the quote from, had a look, ran out time as I was going out and went with my own incorrect version as I was sure it was correct. That is a mistake "1. An error or fault resulting from defective judgment, deficient knowledge, or carelessness. 2. A misconception or misunderstanding." Not a lie "To lie is to deliver a false statement to another person which the speaking person knows is not the whole truth, intentionally." A lie would have been to claim Leuchter had said that the Kremas were annihilated and there are no remains left at all when I had nothing to link to which said anything like that. Instead I missed a comma and used raised instead of razed. I know you can see the difference, but now you have embarked on the attack and abuse tactic I see no way back for you. I can't ever see you apologising for misrepresenting me and what I say.

When you say "Again dodging, there no 70cm holes, and hole in the iron reinforced concrete cannot be shrunken by explosion as this man claims, thus closed." I really wonder if you have been able to follow my argument at all, or you have followed it, but cannot think of a response. No one said hole shrunk, I don't know why you keep on with such rubbish.

OK so have evidenced wood was needed to fix to concrete. How heavy would have the columns been? Would their weight have kept them in place?

This is yet another made up criticism. "In the other words, there is not even one single quote from me suggesting something like this, thus again false statement." I never said that there was a quote from you. I said I had got the idea from you from the thread on disinfecting clothes, from the whole discussion. So your statement is false.

This a non sequitur made up by you rather than dealing with my real point "Thus gassing is not proven thanks to his own admission since not even one single such report from exterminationist was ever produced, interesting." What I have repeatedly said is that a forensic scenes of crime examination of Krema II is needed and so far those who have examined the remains are not suitably qualified. I am puzzled why you do not support that and your search for the truth about Krema II.

I don't have the science to be able to refute this "8)What is your explanation of the fact that according to analysis of Leuchter´s/Rudolf´s samples (experiment samples included) conducted by Alpha Analytic Laboratories/Fresenius Institute/Institute for Environmental Analytics - alleged homicidal gas chambers are practically without reproducible cyanide traces which are in order of magnitude of those found in washroom, bavarian house or inmate barracks (in all cases only up to 9,6 mg/kg) but delousing chambers showed concentrations up to 13,5g/kg?"

Are you sure about this? "False, Leuchter is the only one from this list who has expertise in devices used for capital punishment, i.e. gas chambers, this was confirmed by references above. Nessie is gain handily refuted."

Bob, about Roth and Leuchter and who lied. You will not like this but tough, I went by the Wiki source which suggested Leuchter lied. The evidence you have now presented now casts real doubt on that and it would appear Roth lied, so I accept now Leuchter did not lie. Rather than slag me and Wikipedia off, why not edit the entry and show how Roth lied.

I am not going to get drawn into a debate about the eye witnesses her as I have too many other questions for you to answer. I have made great efforts to answer yours, but draw the line at being told what to debate about by you "Quote this evidence here or forget it if you you already dodged question above, in that case i will not bother with you anymore."

This does not make sense "Nessie still has no clue about what ad hominem means. Exactly, I stated that you can consider it as a statement under oath to bring some seriousness to this case, thanks for confirmation." What has perjury got to do with ad hominems? I think you are getting mixed up.

"Yes, because of your own blunder which exposed that you lied about that mistake, thus you are a self-proven liar." Blunder, mistake, lies they are different things and in any case this shows again you prefer to attack me than my arguments.

"Read provided sources. (Rudolf Report, 2010 p. 13)"

"the nation's only commercial supplier of execution equipment. [...] A trained and accomplished engineer, he is versed in all types of execution equipment. He makes lethal-injection machines, gas chambers, and gallows, as well as electrocution systems "
"The nation's leading adviser on capital punishment."
"America's first and foremost supplier of execution hardware. His products include electric chairs, gas chambers, gallows, and lethal injection machines. He offers design, construction, installation, staff training and maintenance."

But he is not an engineer and he has no experience of forensics and crime scene analysis. As for this "How many times some official institution or court or media ever bothered to check/complain about credentials of exterminationists like Hilberg, Pelt and the others who served as an witnesses during trials? Name these cases please." I cannot, I have not even looked, it does not matter, what matters is Leuchter's lack of credentials for performing forensic scenes of crime analysis and claim he is an engineer.

What exactly is Leuchter's experience with gas chambers? Has it ever involved him going into one and taking samples to have them analysed? Has he experience and training in collecting any sample for forensic analysis? Has he any scenes of crime training? Answer please. If you do not know, just say so.
Last edited by Nessie on Fri Nov 02, 2012 9:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Bob » Fri Nov 02, 2012 9:23 pm

Nessie, my last try, and I request your answer, do not dodge it for fourth time of five time, prove your serious accusation about Leuchter:

"9)Tell me Nessie, how exactly Leuchter lied about the samples? Quote here his lie please."

....if you you already dodged question above, in that case i will not bother with you anymore.


Nessie again dodged it together with most of the comment as usual and he even produced new falsehoods and proofs of his poor knowledge, so end, this leads to nowhere.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Nessie » Fri Nov 02, 2012 9:29 pm

The answer is above, I had hit the submit button by mistake and then went back in to edit the rest of my post. Meanwhile you submitted the above. I accept your argument that Roth lied rather than Leuchter.

Now please answer my questions about Leuchters abilities to do forensic scenes of crime analysis.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Nessie » Fri Nov 02, 2012 9:36 pm

Bob, I was reading this and thought of you

http://vho.org/GB/c/GR/Green.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"But even if I made mistakes - nobody is perfect - that does not mean that I intended to deceive anybody. This insinuation of bad intentions, unfortunately to be found on either sides of this debate, has as a prerequisite the strong believe of the insinuator that he holds the one and absolute truth...." Germar Rudolph.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Bob » Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:28 pm

Bob, about Roth and Leuchter and who lied. You will not like this but tough, I went by the Wiki source which suggested Leuchter lied. The evidence you have now presented now casts real doubt on that and it would appear Roth lied, so I accept now Leuchter did not lie. Rather than slag me and Wikipedia off, why not edit the entry and show how Roth lied.
Hm, so just another false accusation, this time shifted on wikipedia which did not say even a word about some lie from Leuchter.

Wikipedia cannot be edited in this true way as these entries are censored and not welcomed.
Bob, I was reading this and thought of you

http://vho.org/GB/c/GR/Green.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"But even if I made mistakes - nobody is perfect - that does not mean that I intended to deceive anybody. This insinuation of bad intentions, unfortunately to be found on either sides of this debate, has as a prerequisite the strong believe of the insinuator that he holds the one and absolute truth...." Germar Rudolph.
Readers can notice word "IF", this man does not see it since he does not want. And where exactly Rudolf lied or falsely accused someone from lying? Nowhere, Nessie is again off as usual.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Nessie » Sat Nov 03, 2012 8:39 am

Bob please reply to what I have actually said and not your version of what I have said.

There are also some questions for you to answer.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Bob » Sat Nov 03, 2012 1:06 pm

Bob please reply to what I have actually said and not your version of what I have said.
Again one of Nessie´s accusations. As usual from this man, is false.
There are also some questions for you to answer.
I decided not to spend more time with you since you again confirmed quality of your intellectual honesty, but ok, I will answer even when you are dodging my questions and points.
So you deny the Nazis blew up Krema II to hide evidence. Please evidence that claim. I am not interested in your theorising of any hypothesis, just evidence.
You are obviously not interested I answered this many times, so again: they left intact documentation of central construction office in Auschwitz together with blueprints and orders for alleged killing installations without bothering to destroy them by simply light a match. (Feel free to visit for example Archive of the national museum of Auschwitz, National archives of the Russian federation, Russian national war archives to see this documents)

They left camp with up to 7,000 (it depends on source) witnesses. (Feel free to read some basic book on this topic or check photos from liberation)

They left alleged gas chamber in crematorium I intact (at this time converted to shelter by a few added walls in former alleged gas chamber) (Fell free to visit this room today)

This is irrefutable evidence proving that they did not hide alleged crime and they had no reason to destroy it.

Readers can notice that this man did not present any evidence that Nzis did it, but from me - he wants evidence, just absurd man.
When you say "Again dodging, there no 70cm holes, and hole in the iron reinforced concrete cannot be shrunken by explosion as this man claims, thus closed." I really wonder if you have been able to follow my argument at all, or you have followed it, but cannot think of a response. No one said hole shrunk, I don't know why you keep on with such rubbish.
This rubbish is your, I informed you there are no holes 70cm according to orthodox sources, for this reason they invented new size to be able to claim that now existing irregular holes and cracks are these introduction holes, then you said how explosion probably caused that 70cm holes were altered and changed so they cannot be located and we have only small holes today. So this rubbish about shrunken holes is your. Period.
OK so have evidenced wood was needed to fix to concrete. How heavy would have the columns been? Would their weight have kept them in place?
What this has to with missing fixtures? Nothing, Nessie dodged it as usual.
This is yet another made up criticism. "In the other words, there is not even one single quote from me suggesting something like this, thus again false statement." I never said that there was a quote from you. I said I had got the idea from you from the thread on disinfecting clothes, from the whole discussion. So your statement is false.
So in the other words, there is not a single quote of mine giving this man some idea about his claim about blue pigment. So your statement is again false. Period.
This a non sequitur made up by you rather than dealing with my real point "Thus gassing is not proven thanks to his own admission since not even one single such report from exterminationist was ever produced, interesting." What I have repeatedly said is that a forensic scenes of crime examination of Krema II is needed and so far those who have examined the remains are not suitably qualified. I am puzzled why you do not support that and your search for the truth about Krema II.
You idea is clear admission of how this was never done by orthodox sources thus gassing is not proven. Now -this cannot be done by criminal investigators from police and etc.because this is forbidden, and why? Obviously not because there is plenty of evidence, but because there is nothing what is claimed to be there. Investigation of present state was done without ability to remove material to expose place not accessed (for example door) by chemists, historians, engineers, and photographed or videotaped in presence of witnesses.

10)So Nessie, who exactly is missing from this investigation team according to you?
I don't have the science to be able to refute this "8)What is your explanation of the fact that according to analysis of Leuchter´s/Rudolf´s samples (experiment samples included) conducted by Alpha Analytic Laboratories/Fresenius Institute/Institute for Environmental Analytics - alleged homicidal gas chambers are practically without reproducible cyanide traces which are in order of magnitude of those found in washroom, bavarian house or inmate barracks (in all cases only up to 9,6 mg/kg) but delousing chambers showed concentrations up to 13,5g/kg?"
Yes, i know.
Are you sure about this? "False, Leuchter is the only one from this list who has expertise in devices used for capital punishment, i.e. gas chambers, this was confirmed by references above. Nessie is gain handily refuted."
Yes.
I am not going to get drawn into a debate about the eye witnesses her as I have too many other questions for you to answer. I have made great efforts to answer yours, but draw the line at being told what to debate about by you "Quote this evidence here or forget it if you you already dodged question above, in that case i will not bother with you anymore."
Do not waste time with more questions, answers for most of your questions are freely available on the internet or in orthodox books, feel free to to do some own basic research, I will not spend more time with educating yourself about basic things, sorry.

Underlined sentence, this must be some joke, right? (rhetoric question) Your dodging is extraordinary.
But he is not an engineer and he has no experience of forensics and crime scene analysis.
The Atlantic Monthly - A trained and accomplished engineer (edit - corrected error in the name of paper)

Again examples of credentials of peoples writing about "irrefutable gassing" or peoples who allegedly proved that revisionists are wrong and Nessie uses them as sources without any problem:

Jean Claude Pressac - pharmacist
Deborah Lipstadt - professor of modern jewish studies
Robert Jan Van Pelt - architectural historian
Werner Wagner - social worker
John C. Zimmerman - associate professor, accountant (his source for history, cremations and cremation technology)
Jan Markiewicz - technical testing specialist (his source for chemistry)"

and so on...


Nessie obviously has no problem with them despite their missing credentials, thus is impossible to have problem with Leuchter, if he has problem only with Leuchter and not with peoples above, this means that he is using double standard to match his belief, he has no problem to accept information from them, but problem with information from Leuchter. How many times do I need to prove Nessie´s intellectual dishonesty and absurd contradicting approach? (rhetoric question)
As for this "How many times some official institution or court or media ever bothered to check/complain about credentials of exterminationists like Hilberg, Pelt and the others who served as an witnesses during trials? Name these cases please." I cannot, I have not even looked, it does not matter, what matters is...
What matter is, dear sir, that you even didn´t bother to look for answer to my question and you will probably not find any example thus what we have here is again proof of your double standard, you spent time to "prove" missing diploma or credentials about Leuchter, but you didn´t bother to look for answer to my question about exterminationists. You approach is just ridiculous.

When the problem is raised about believers - it does not matter.
When the problem is raised about Leuchter - it does matter.

My approach is completely different, i don´t care about diploma of Hilberg, Pelt, Leuchter and etc. my approach is exactly the same like of Germar Rudolf:

The competence certainly does not come from his training as an electrical engineer. Whether Butz is competent or not is revealed exclusively by what he writes, not by his academic degrees.

In short, I care not about messenger, but about message. I will no more bother to explain this simple issue to you. Period.

The most absurd is, that when some revisionists is engineer, he is not historian or chemist, thus not accepted by individuals like Nessie. When somebody is chemist, then he is not historian. When somebody is historian, he is not chemist or engineer. And so on....this silly beleiver´s tactic cannot be never full fill as one needs to be an engineer, chemist, historian, psychologist, criminal investigator, designer of gas chambers, and so on. Readers can be sure then when some believer like Nessie, Pelt and etc. starts to babble about diplomas, this is caused by a total lack of any arguments as they themselves lacks the very same diplomas.

10)Can Nessie explain what engineer diploma this Leuchter must own to be able to write a report about gas chamber if his training is not enough according to him. Can you name this diploma or even school where such diploma can be obtained please?

11)Can Nessie name just one single name of some human who was at that time better expert on gas chambers and who is considered by him or other sources as real expert with diploma?

12)Can Nessie explain why Pressac can be officially called a historian and why Leuchter cannot be called engineer?
What exactly is Leuchter's experience with gas chambers? Has it ever involved him going into one and taking samples to have them analysed?
He built or designed this device among other devices for capital punishment, read provided sources about him. There was no need to take sample from gas chamber for capital punishemnt.
Has he experience and training in collecting any sample for forensic analysis?
No, for this reason Germar Rudolf as a chemist took samples in irrefutable proper way and confirmed Leuchter´s analysis obviously not affected by alleged wrongly handled samples.
Has he any scenes of crime training?
Nessie already proved that for him training means nothing if this training is not backed up by diploma, he obviously "forgot" this detail when he wrote this question so to be able to answer, I must firstly ask as i am completely lost:

13)Can Nessie provide me with the name of diploma which certifies people as a "trained for crime scene investigation"?


What I find especially absurd is, that this man claimed how he is able to argue against revisionists or to "drive huge wedges into the holes in your arguments", but according to his approach, this is utter nonsense as he lacks diploma for this and his own sources as well.
Last edited by Bob on Sat Nov 03, 2012 3:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Darren Wilshak
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1467
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2012 1:16 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Darren Wilshak » Sat Nov 03, 2012 1:40 pm

"Orthodox books..".LOL As opposed to the conflicting pile of crap that you obsessively spew out, huh, Bob?

That would explain a lot about the loony Bob.
"We are still waiting for anyone to rebut the main theme of the article that the decode in question and the numbers it quoted perfectly match those in the Korherr report.

Until such a rebuttal comes to light and goes through peer review the article stands the test of time. And after 10 years since the article was published both Peter (Witte) and I have moved on to other research projects. "

AHF

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Nessie » Sat Nov 03, 2012 7:05 pm

Ah, that tactic again "Again one of Nessie´s accusations. As usual from this man, is false." You spout forth without showing an unconvoluted, clearly reasoned, evidenced reason for what you claim.

This is a non sequitur "...they left intact documentation of central construction office in Auschwitz...They left camp with up to 7,000 (it depends on source) witnesses......left alleged gas chamber in crematorium I intact (at this time converted to shelter..." therefore "This is irrefutable evidence proving that they did not hide alleged crime" So as predicted a theorised hypothesis. Using the same method I can say they destroyed many documents, they killed many witnesses, they partially dismantled and the blew up the unconverted intact Krema II gas chamber. This is irrefutable evidence they did attempt to hide evidence.

You claim "Readers can notice that this man did not present any evidence that Nzis did it, but from me.." but that ignores the secondary evidence such as http://en.auschwitz.org/h/index.php?opt ... &Itemid=15" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; If you cannot present any evidence to back up your claim then you are a hypocrite criticising me.

This is another example of you unable to follow what I have said and basing criticism on your own invention.

"This rubbish is your, I informed you there are no holes 70cm according to orthodox sources, for this reason they invented new size to be able to claim that now existing irregular holes and cracks are these introduction holes, then you said how explosion probably caused that 70cm holes were altered and changed so they cannot be located and we have only small holes today. So this rubbish about shrunken holes is your. Period."

I said I am not surprised that there no holes 70cm due to the explosion. I pointed out that there are no other regular sized holes, whether 10cm or 90cm. But I see now that you agree there are plenty of irregular holes, which matches the evidence the holes where not made when the roof was made. Then you invent nonsense where you incorrectly conflate that any 70cm holes were altered that they got smaller. So this rubbish about shrunken holes is your invention, period.

This yet more inability to follow a very simple point. "What this has to with missing fixtures? Nothing, Nessie dodged it as usual." You showed me evidence that there were no fixings on the floor and that wood was used to make fixings. So I then ask a simple question of would the weight of the column keep it in place, meaning no fixings required. You call that a dodge, which is rubbish. I accepted your evidence and then made a further suggestion. Indeed the dodge is yours because you will not answer my simple question.

We move on to another inability to follow what I have clearly said. "So in the other words, there is not a single quote of mine giving this man some idea about his claim about blue pigment. So your statement is again false. Period." At no point did I say that there was a single quote. That is your invention. What I did say was the information I got from the thread as a whole and what you said in the thread as a whole lead me to realise that clothing delousing chambers are more blue than other places where Zyklon B has been used.

This not true "You idea is clear admission of how this was never done by orthodox sources thus gassing is not proven." Just because the kind of forensic scenes of crime examination that I would like to see of Krema II has not been done, by either orthodox or revisionist/denier sides does not mean gassing is unproven. Gassings are proven by other evidence, the evidence you ignore such as witnesses.

I have repeatedly said there should be proper investigations of Krema II and other places such as the AR camps. " Now -this cannot be done by criminal investigators from police and etc.because this is forbidden, and why? Obviously not because there is plenty of evidence, but because there is nothing what is claimed to be there.." The latter has yet to be proven by the denier/revisionist side. Therefore "10)So Nessie, who exactly is missing from this investigation team according to you? " the answer is police and forensic scenes of crime examiners, forensic archaeologists. Examples are found here

http://www.historic-scotland.gov.uk/ind ... emains.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

where Historic Scotland advise what to do when finding human remains, report to the police and get the properly trained archaeologists in. The police have access to all sorts of resources like that to forensically examine buildings, cars, weapons, you name it.

I have a problem with Leuchter and everyone else listed by you in that non have the experience to go and do a forensic scenes of crime examination of Krema II. This made up nonsense "Nessie obviously has no problem with them despite their missing credentials, thus is impossible to have problem with Leuchter, if he has problem only with Leuchter and not with peoples above, this means that he is using double standard to match his belief, he has no problem to accept information from them, but problem with information from Leuchter. How many times do I need to prove Nessie´s intellectual dishonesty and absurd contradicting approach? (rhetoric question)" How many times do I have to say forensic scenes of crime examination before you finally get what I am calling for and how it has yet to happen? respond to what I say, not your made up version designed purely to dish out attacks.

This is more made up criticism by you "When the problem is raised about believers - it does not matter.
When the problem is raised about Leuchter - it does matter." I say if anyone is found to lack qualifications and make claims that are false, they are discredited.

This is fraught with danger if you are serious about finding the truth.

"My approach is completely different, i don´t care about diploma of Hilberg, Pelt, Leuchter and etc. my approach is exactly the same like of Germar Rudolf: The competence certainly does not come from his training as an electrical engineer. Whether Butz is competent or not is revealed exclusively by what he writes, not by his academic degrees. In short, I care not about messenger, but about message. I will no more bother to explain this simple issue to you. Period."

The problem with that approach is that you leave yourself wide open to any claim no matter how crackpot the source. You are also giving yourself a problem with convincing others when your sources lack credibility. You are arguing that since you know an electrician who did some plumbing, then he is a very good plumber. To say that competence does not come from training is utter drivel. Please name a job, any job where those untrained are seen as anything other than less competent than those trained in that job. Not caring about the messenger and caring about the message means that even if the message comes from a bad source, so long it is the message you want, that is OK, but it is not. You have to care about both or you have no credibility if you claim you are looking at evidence to find the truth.

This is more nonsense "The most absurd is, that when some revisionists is engineer, he is not historian or chemist, thus not accepted by individuals like Nessie. When somebody is chemist, then he is not historian. When somebody is historian, he is not chemist or engineer. And so on....this silly beleiver´s tactic cannot be never full fill as one needs to be an engineer, chemist, historian, psychologist, criminal investigator, designer of gas chambers, and so on. Readers can be sure then when some believer like Nessie, Pelt and etc. starts to babble about diplomas, this is caused by a total lack of any arguments as they themselves lacks the very same diplomas." Ever heard of a team? You get in different people with different skills to do the different jobs. You also get the best people you can and you are best avoiding unqualified people with no skill in the task in hand.

10)Can Nessie explain what engineer diploma this Leuchter must own to be able to write a report about gas chamber if his training is not enough according to him. Can you name this diploma or even school where such diploma can be obtained please? Yes, if it a forensic scenes of crime examination of a gas chamber he needs forensic and scenes of crime qualifications. If it is to build a modern day gas chamber as used in the USA, a mechanical engineering degree would be the most appropriate.

11)Can Nessie name just one single name of some human who was at that time better expert on gas chambers and who is considered by him or other sources as real expert with diploma? This question shows just how much Bob has missed my point. Leuchter has no forensic, archaeological or scenes of crime experience and that was the work he did at Krema II. Have you noticed just how different this

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-eeh5FjkgT_8/T ... hamber.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

is from this?

http://www.jailingopinions.com/images/KremaIIa.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

12)Can Nessie explain why Pressac can be officially called a historian and why Leuchter cannot be called engineer? Pressac and others can get away with calling him a historian because there is no official body that will step in to say no you cannot be called a historian. But there are engineering professional bodies who will step in if someone claims to be an engineer. There are other examples of this, such as in the UK and USA a dietician has to be qualified to use that title, but anyone can call themselves a nutritionist. I think Pressace is not a historian and Leuchter is not an engineer.

I agree that Germar Rudolph has way more credibility in his research, as he has the training and qualifications to back up his claims. That he backs up Leuchter's findings means either both are right or both are wrong.

13)Can Nessie provide me with the name of diploma which certifies people as a "trained for crime scene investigation"? -

Basic SOC officers

https://nationalcareersservice.direct.g ... ficer.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;,

"Entry requirements vary between police forces. You may be accepted if you have a minimum of between three and five GCSEs (A-C) or the equivalent, preferably including English, maths and a science subject. However, forces often ask for A levels (or equivalent qualifications) and some will expect you to have a degree in a science-related subject. You should check entry requirements with the police force for the area you want to work in before staring a course."

"Once you start work as a trainee SOCO, you will spend several weeks working with experienced colleagues in your own force. You may then start the Initial Crime Scene Investigator Training Course at the National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) in County Durham, or other training establishment. The training takes four weeks, and qualifies you to undertake volume crime scene investigation. When you have successfully completed your initial training, you may be selected to do a further five-week training programme with the NPIA, which will qualify you as a full SOCO /CSI."

That is the basic needs to gather evidence and photo it. For actual forensic examinations of the gathered material

http://forensicsciencecentral.co.uk/car ... tion.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"The level of education you will require for a career in forensic science is greatly dependent on the area of forensics you are looking to get into. For a position as a forensic scientist employers will almost always require you to have a Bachelor’s degree in a scientific subject, and for certain positions candidates may be required to have completed a Master’s degree or hold a PhD. Despite the vast array for forensic science courses available, a degree in chemistry or a similar subject is generally preferred, though some forensic science degrees that are especially chemistry-based are suitable."

Forensic archaeology is a degree qualification available from a number of UK Universities.

http://www.kent.ac.uk/careers/workin/archaeology.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Bob » Sat Nov 03, 2012 11:37 pm

This is a non sequitur "...they left intact documentation of central construction office in Auschwitz...They left camp with up to 7,000 (it depends on source) witnesses......left alleged gas chamber in crematorium I intact (at this time converted to shelter..." therefore "This is irrefutable evidence proving that they did not hide alleged crime" So as predicted a theorised hypothesis.
No counter arguments against this evidence, ok.
Using the same method I can say they destroyed many documents, they killed many witnesses, they partially dismantled and the blew up the unconverted intact Krema II gas chamber. This is irrefutable evidence they did attempt to hide evidence.
I do not see any arguments, destroying of documents is refuted, killing of witness too, dismantling isn´t anything strange, and blew up Krema II - you are again on the beginning. Why? To hide evidence? See my arguments, refuted.
You claim "Readers can notice that this man did not present any evidence that Nzis did it, but from me.." but that ignores the secondary evidence such as http://en.auschwitz.org/h/index.php?opt" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... &Itemid=15 If you cannot present any evidence to back up your claim then you are a hypocrite criticising me.
Presenting a link which does not contain any evidence is not evidence.
I said I am not surprised that there no holes 70cm due to the explosion. I pointed out that there are no other regular sized holes, whether 10cm or 90cm. But I see now that you agree there are plenty of irregular holes, which matches the evidence the holes where not made when the roof was made. Then you invent nonsense where you incorrectly conflate that any 70cm holes were altered that they got smaller. So this rubbish about shrunken holes is your invention, period.
Again no arguments.
This yet more inability to follow a very simple point. "What this has to with missing fixtures? Nothing, Nessie dodged it as usual." You showed me evidence that there were no fixings on the floor and that wood was used to make fixings. So I then ask a simple question of would the weight of the column keep it in place, meaning no fixings required. You call that a dodge, which is rubbish. I accepted your evidence and then made a further suggestion. Indeed the dodge is yours because you will not answer my simple question.
He should have to know how much his fictional and technically absurd wire column weighted, I am going to remind him his own statement:

"I don't know if or how they fitted onto the floor. If the whole structure was to be raised up and down, they may have not needed fitting at all."

If this was oh so heavy, they obviously used some crane, right Nessie? He should have to think twice before writing some nonsense contradicting his own hypothesis.
We move on to another inability to follow what I have clearly said. "So in the other words, there is not a single quote of mine giving this man some idea about his claim about blue pigment. So your statement is again false. Period." At no point did I say that there was a single quote. That is your invention. What I did say was the information I got from the thread as a whole and what you said in the thread as a whole lead me to realise that clothing delousing chambers are more blue than other places where Zyklon B has been used.
So in the other words again, whole thread does not suggest anything like what you have said about blue pigment. Period.
This not true "You idea is clear admission of how this was never done by orthodox sources thus gassing is not proven." Just because the kind of forensic scenes of crime examination that I would like to see of Krema II has not been done, by either orthodox or revisionist/denier sides does not mean gassing is unproven. Gassings are proven by other evidence, the evidence you ignore such as witnesses.
Of course false, Nessie as usual, I already challenged him to provide his witness, he refused. I have no problem to dissect his witness. I would be content with just one.
I have repeatedly said there should be proper investigations of Krema II and other places such as the AR camps. " Now -this cannot be done by criminal investigators from police and etc.because this is forbidden, and why? Obviously not because there is plenty of evidence, but because there is nothing what is claimed to be there.." The latter has yet to be proven by the denier/revisionist side.
But this is forbidden. And why? Because there is so much evidence for gassing? Hardly. Nevermind, roof is visible without need to manipulate with it and no introduction holes, thus proven. Same goes for crematorium I, so I am ok, but Nessie has problem Houston.
My question - 10)So Nessie, who exactly is missing from this investigation team according to you? "

Nessie - the answer is police and forensic scenes of crime examiners, forensic archaeologists.
Nessie forgot a few "little" problems - police or crime team will not investigate something what is officially closed and "proven" for some 40-50 years unless there is a reason to re-open the case. And how exactly can police and crime investigators investigate scene if this if forbidden by law and this can be punished by jail sentence for denying the holocaust or desecration of the memory of those who perished in non existing gas chamber? Nessie again did not think thoroughly his theory as he is really incompetent, system is set exactly for the purpose to make such investigation impossible, and why? Obviously not because there are s so many proofs.

As for forensic archeologist - what this man is able to accomplish in alleged gas chamber and others not if Nessie needs him?

Finally, Nessie is crying on the wrong grave, this should had to be done 40-50 years ago and "deniers" have no problem to investigate these sites as much as possible, only exterminationists do not want it, reasons are of course clear, they know or they are afraid of the results. If Nessie wonders about this, he can contact Auschwitz museum via his "no evidence link" above and ask them. Or he can offer them new investigation and then can Nessie kindly report to me if they welcomed his proposal.
I have a problem with Leuchter and everyone else listed by you in that non have the experience to go and do a forensic scenes of crime examination of Krema II.
He has problem with them all, but despite this, he used Zimmerman and Markiewicz as his sources and support. Ridiculous.

Actually i do not know what he is still doing in this thread or forum, for him, everyone is without needed expertise an credentials, Nessie too, thus what he is doing here? Ah, wait, he has other evidence - some imaginary witnesses. But why does he believes him/her/them if he lacks credentials to be able to judge their statements since I know, that he needs from everyone proper bundle of diplomas. Nessie is somewhat confused again, he has no credentials to judge it, but he believes them, oops.
This made up nonsense "Nessie obviously has no problem with them despite their missing credentials, thus is impossible to have problem with Leuchter, if he has problem only with Leuchter and not with peoples above, this means that he is using double standard to match his belief, he has no problem to accept information from them, but problem with information from Leuchter. How many times do I need to prove Nessie´s intellectual dishonesty and absurd contradicting approach? (rhetoric question)" How many times do I have to say forensic scenes of crime examination before you finally get what I am calling for and how it has yet to happen? respond to what I say, not your made up version designed purely to dish out attacks.
??? Nevermind, he dodged my point.
This is more made up criticism by you "When the problem is raised about believers - it does not matter.
When the problem is raised about Leuchter - it does matter." I say if anyone is found to lack qualifications and make claims that are false, they are discredited.
Thus his own sources are discredited and Nessie as well.
The problem with that approach is that you leave yourself wide open to any claim no matter how crackpot the source. You are also giving yourself a problem with convincing others when your sources lack credibility.


Exactly! He perfectly described himself, congrats for this progress.
My question - 10)Can Nessie explain what engineer diploma this Leuchter must own to be able to write a report about gas chamber if his training is not enough according to him. Can you name this diploma or even school where such diploma can be obtained please?


Nessie - Yes, if it a forensic scenes of crime examination of a gas chamber he needs forensic and scenes of crime qualifications. If it is to build a modern day gas chamber as used in the USA, a mechanical engineering degree would be the most appropriate.
He has dodged it completely, for obvious reasons, as far as I know, no such an engineer diploma exist nor "crime gas chamber qualification diploma" and neither school about gas chambers. Thus Nessie wants something what does not exist. Some "crime scene qualification" is completely worthless if such individual doesn´t know anything about gas chambers, such qualified crime investigator will need who? - a gas chamber expert.
My question - 11)Can Nessie name just one single name of some human who was at that time better expert on gas chambers and who is considered by him or other sources as real expert with diploma?

Nessie - This question shows just how much Bob has missed my point. Leuchter has no forensic, archaeological or scenes of crime experience and that was the work he did at Krema II. Have you noticed just how different this
He has dodged it completely again, for obvious reasons, as far as I know, no better expert on gas chambers existed at that time. Maybe not even today.
My question - 12)Can Nessie explain why Pressac can be officially called a historian and why Leuchter cannot be called engineer?

Nessie- Pressac and others can get away with calling him a historian because there is no official body that will step in to say no you cannot be called a historian. But there are engineering professional bodies who will step in if someone claims to be an engineer. There are other examples of this, such as in the UK and USA a dietician has to be qualified to use that title, but anyone can call themselves a nutritionist. I think Pressace is not a historian and Leuchter is not an engineer.
Obviously if we have official body to say - no, you cannot be called an engineer because of missing proper registration or diploma, we have also the same approach for saying - no, you cannot be called a historian.

As i see, this man still really believes that somewhere on the world exist some "gas chamber university" to obtain engineer diploma for gas chambers so he complains about Leuchter, this is just ridiculous. Nessie wants something what does not exist.

Or Nessie would have been ok with Leuchter and his gas chamber report if he would have been a professional licensed engineer for laundry machines?
My question - 13)Can Nessie provide me with the name of diploma which certifies people as a "trained for crime scene investigation"? -

Nessie - Basic SOC officers

https://nationalcareersservice.direct.g" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... ficer.aspx,

"Entry requirements vary between police forces. You may be accepted if you have a minimum of between three and five GCSEs (A-C) or the equivalent, preferably including English, maths and a science subject. However, forces often ask for A levels (or equivalent qualifications) and some will expect you to have a degree in a science-related subject. You should check entry requirements with the police force for the area you want to work in before staring a course."

"Once you start work as a trainee SOCO, you will spend several weeks working with experienced colleagues in your own force. You may then start the Initial Crime Scene Investigator Training Course at the National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) in County Durham, or other training establishment. The training takes four weeks, and qualifies you to undertake volume crime scene investigation. When you have successfully completed your initial training, you may be selected to do a further five-week training programme with the NPIA, which will qualify you as a full SOCO /CSI."

That is the basic needs to gather evidence and photo it. For actual forensic examinations of the gathered material

"The level of education you will require for a career in forensic science is greatly dependent on the area of forensics you are looking to get into. For a position as a forensic scientist employers will almost always require you to have a Bachelor’s degree in a scientific subject, and for certain positions candidates may be required to have completed a Master’s degree or hold a PhD. Despite the vast array for forensic science courses available, a degree in chemistry or a similar subject is generally preferred, though some forensic science degrees that are especially chemistry-based are suitable."

Forensic archaeology is a degree qualification available from a number of UK Universities.
Where exactly Nessie sees something about gas chambers or engineering or history qualifications?

And what these people collecting or recording samples can do better than for example trained chemist Germar Rudolf who collected and documented his samples? They are doing better coffee or what?

User avatar
Darren Wilshak
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1467
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2012 1:16 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Darren Wilshak » Sun Nov 04, 2012 12:21 am

Leuchter
Rudolf
Snore.
"We are still waiting for anyone to rebut the main theme of the article that the decode in question and the numbers it quoted perfectly match those in the Korherr report.

Until such a rebuttal comes to light and goes through peer review the article stands the test of time. And after 10 years since the article was published both Peter (Witte) and I have moved on to other research projects. "

AHF

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Nessie » Sun Nov 04, 2012 7:22 am

Yes, snore! Bob is wilfully or mischieviously or maybe just out of ignorance misrepresenting, dismissing and dodging what I have actually said.

What is so hard to understand about my point that Krema II has not been properly examined by people with right skills and qualifications to do so?

Where is the difficulty in following that I realised the difference in blue colouring between delousing chambers and homicidal gas chambers in a thread about delousing clothes?
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Bob » Sun Nov 04, 2012 9:28 am

Dodged all the way with more accusations as usual.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Bob » Sun Nov 04, 2012 9:58 am

I have again completely re read whole thread which Nessie allegedly used for his claim about blue pigment, and yes, there is not a single comment suggesting something about his idea. Whole thread does not suggest any such idea and no surprise he is not able to quote a single comment about it.

But I found nice nonsense related to his previou lies and inventions about Buchenwald, with the help of his favorite source - wikipedia - he claimed that Zyklon B was allegedly tested in Buchenwald on 250 children.

In early 1940, the use of hydrogen cyanide produced as Zyklon B was tested on 250 Roma children from Brno at the Buchenwald concentration camp.

He refused my orthodox source stating there was no gas chamber. What is really spicy about his nonsense? His quote about this is currently missing from wikipedia and his gas chamber thus magically disappeared, but no doubt, he still believes it, as he said:

Sorry, but just because you [in fact orthodox historian Martin Broszat] believe something is false does not mean I should as well.

http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 80#p269082" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_chamber" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So much for incompetence of this individual who is dodging all the time and his claims one big error. He is thus in very good company here.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Nessie » Sun Nov 04, 2012 1:02 pm

Bob wrote:Dodged all the way with more accusations as usual.
This from the person who persistently misrepresents what has been put to him.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Nessie » Sun Nov 04, 2012 1:20 pm

Bob wrote:I have again completely re read whole thread which Nessie allegedly used for his claim about blue pigment, and yes, there is not a single comment suggesting something about his idea. Whole thread does not suggest any such idea and no surprise he is not able to quote a single comment about it.

But I found nice nonsense related to his previou lies and inventions about Buchenwald, with the help of his favorite source - wikipedia - he claimed that Zyklon B was allegedly tested in Buchenwald on 250 children.

In early 1940, the use of hydrogen cyanide produced as Zyklon B was tested on 250 Roma children from Brno at the Buchenwald concentration camp.

He refused my orthodox source stating there was no gas chamber. What is really spicy about his nonsense? His quote about this is currently missing from wikipedia and his gas chamber thus magically disappeared, but no doubt, he still believes it, as he said:

Sorry, but just because you [in fact orthodox historian Martin Broszat] believe something is false does not mean I should as well.

http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 80#p269082" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_chamber" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So much for incompetence of this individual who is dodging all the time and his claims one big error. He is thus in very good company here.
In that thread on chambers and clothing in post #15 I asked about chambers being used for clothes and for humans. The next post you ask me to specify chambers. By post #21 I have started to look at the different chambers and three posts later Dachau in particular. In post #26 I have looked at Majdanek and Stuthof and by post #44 I have accepted you evidence for some chambers. In post #55 I specifically mention residue on walls and in post #67 I have said there was less Zyklon B for humans than clothes. In post #83 I say that I am collating chambers with discolouration.

So as I said to you before I got the idea of more discolouration with chambers used for clothes than people from you in that thread. Not that I would ever expect you to be able to follow such as it proves youare wrong.

As for the Roma children, that and various other matters were discussed briefly during the thread. The real detail was about the use of gas chambers.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Bob » Sun Nov 04, 2012 2:44 pm

In that thread on chambers and clothing in post #15 I asked about chambers being used for clothes and for humans. The next post you ask me to specify chambers. By post #21 I have started to look at the different chambers and three posts later Dachau in particular. In post #26 I have looked at Majdanek and Stuthof and by post #44 I have accepted you evidence for some chambers. In post #55 I specifically mention residue on walls and in post #67 I have said there was less Zyklon B for humans than clothes. In post #83 I say that I am collating chambers with discolouration.

So as I said to you before I got the idea of more discolouration with chambers used for clothes than people from you in that thread. Not that I would ever expect you to be able to follow such as it proves youare wrong.
This is of course false as we discussed Majdanek or Stutthoff chambers, these are according to orthodox sources homicidal gas chambers, but they have blue pigment on the walls, so one must wonder how Nessie created his idea (missing pigment in homicidal gas chamber and visible pigment in delousing chambers because of different exposure times) when this idea was not suggested by this thread, but contradicted!

As from amount of Zyklon B, refuted in #68.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Nessie » Sun Nov 04, 2012 3:07 pm

Bob wrote:.......

This is of course false as we discussed Majdanek or Stutthoff chambers, these are according to orthodox sources homicidal gas chambers, but they have blue pigment on the walls, so one must wonder how Nessie created his idea (missing pigment in homicidal gas chamber and visible pigment in delousing chambers because of different exposure times) when this idea was not suggested by this thread, but contradicted!

As from amount of Zyklon B, refuted in #68.
Yet again Bob is unable or unwilling to follow what has been said. It was Majdanek in particular with its different chambers and different levels of pigmentation that made me realise that there was a correlation between chambers used only or primarily for delousing clothes and those used only or primarily for people.

For you to claim I did not get the idea from that thread is pure arrogant nonsense. I have shown a clear though process develop from that thread.

That Krema II has been found not to have heavily stained walls is evidence that it was used irregularly (it broke down at times) and constantly degassed, so there was little chance for the staining to form. It is compelling, answer the debate beyond all reason evidence, but it is still part of the big picture that proves Krema II was used for a time as a homicidal gas chamber.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Bob » Sun Nov 04, 2012 4:06 pm

That Krema II has been found not to have heavily stained walls is evidence that it was used irregularly (it broke down at times) and constantly degassed, so there was little chance for the staining to form. It is compelling, answer the debate beyond all reason evidence, but it is still part of the big picture that proves Krema II was used for a time as a homicidal gas chamber.
When he said "not to have heavily stained walls" then is clear that this man really believes that walls are stained, but not heavily, once for all he again proved his total incompetence and lack of knowledge. Walls are of course not even slightly stained, there is nothing, zero, nada. He himself linked to sources claiming it and that there is not possible to have blue pigment, yet he suggested that there is staining albeit not heavy!

The rest is probably not even worth of a comment, these are only repetitions.
For you to claim I did not get the idea from that thread is pure arrogant nonsense. I have shown a clear though process develop from that thread.
Yes, he showed it:

Majdanek AHGCH - blue pigment on the walls (total camp death toll for the entire period of existence according to orthodox sources 78,000 of whom 59,000 Jews)
Stutthof AHGCH - blue pigment on the walls, death varies from 1,000 to 4,000 for the entire period.
Auschwitz AHGCH in crematorium 2 - no blue pigment on the walls or reproducible cyanide traces (death toll of this AHGCH - 500,000 or 400,000 for approx. 20 months, during so called Hungarian operation, approx. one gassing per day- it may vary since it depends on source)

Nessie´s verdict - walls of homicidal gas chamber in crematorium 2 were less or irregularly exposed than delousing chambers, thus no blue pigment and I am ignoring alleged homicidal gas chambers in Majdanek and Stutthof.

His thread simply contradicts his idea and yet, he produced idea which is exactly the opposite of what he suggested. The best what can Nessie does is to claim a nonsense that these installations were before or later or simultaneously used as an installations for saving lives of inmates and for mass gassings of inmates and Nazis were thus somewhat really confused - kill - save- kill - save...just absurd.

Neither in Majdanek nor in Auschwitz or Stutthof were people gassed. Majdanek and Stutthof - only delousing chambers for saving lives.
Yet again Bob is unable or unwilling to follow what has been said. It was Majdanek in particular with its different chambers and different levels of pigmentation that made me realise that there was a correlation between chambers used only or primarily for delousing clothes and those used only or primarily for people.
Only accusation to cover own blunders. And different levels? These alleged chambers IV(C) and III(A) have the same heavy staining like in Auschwitz or Stutthof delousing chambers. He obviously never saw them.

User avatar
Darren Wilshak
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1467
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2012 1:16 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Darren Wilshak » Sun Nov 04, 2012 4:11 pm

I deny cataloguely that Nazi blew up crematoria XIII. Unattached to any organisation without boreders police will not ever find anything no way anyway nohow unlike honest Lectern Fred who knows about real Amerkikaner gas chambers and not fake lying Jew ones.

Why don't they reopen important wall investigations into Krematorium XIII, and they must because Revisionist tide is overwhelming them with 600 members of codoh (a full third of which are Gerdes sockpuppets) answering demanders..

Camp had swimming pool and room where gefanger paid ladies to have sexual intercourses on matrass as seen in this important youtube video which you must see and which is hosted by good friend and Polish loon and comrade Truth Seeker Ulicki-Rek. As for depressions in roofs of chamberlain, they invented new size of hole to stop honest Revisionists finding out truth of course. You do not know line in Lennon and Mcartney song Nessie? No holes and is not in Blackburn Lancashire. Or numbering over 3,999 similar sized holes but is 0000.7microns smaller you see?

Of course if you were to read important book Nessie by Dr., Dr. Mark Listonazi and not Orthodox transcripts of lying victory show trials which I have and you have not (I already refuted in answer 456 anyway so you are lying), you would see that I am not scz.
"We are still waiting for anyone to rebut the main theme of the article that the decode in question and the numbers it quoted perfectly match those in the Korherr report.

Until such a rebuttal comes to light and goes through peer review the article stands the test of time. And after 10 years since the article was published both Peter (Witte) and I have moved on to other research projects. "

AHF

User avatar
Darren Wilshak
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1467
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2012 1:16 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Darren Wilshak » Sun Nov 04, 2012 4:13 pm

Next Bob will explain what "heavily" actually means.
"We are still waiting for anyone to rebut the main theme of the article that the decode in question and the numbers it quoted perfectly match those in the Korherr report.

Until such a rebuttal comes to light and goes through peer review the article stands the test of time. And after 10 years since the article was published both Peter (Witte) and I have moved on to other research projects. "

AHF