The Prevarications of Markiewicz (Prussian Blue)

[Callafangers]

So the Polish study, if the results are accurate, does seem to indicate *some level* of cyanide use at the Crema. Revisionists might argue there were delousing chambers at the Crema or the building was regularly fumigated. Documents like the one for requesting HCN detectors indicate that the use of HCN there was more intense than this.

Scenario:

You're trying to control the spread of lice at a large camp with a typhus epidemic.
You have a room filled dozens of lice-infested corpses at any given time, each held there for a couple days before cremation, where lice can still reproduce and spread.
You have SS staff and inmates working in these buildings, at risk of carrying lice contracted here to elsewhere in the camp.
Control of lice literally becomes priority #1 in this camp.

Is there any chance at all you are not going to heavily fumigate this building?

Even in the barracks there are reports of lice swarming around on the walls and floors. It is common-sense to heavily treat the morgues as well.

[bombsaway]

So the Polish study, if the results are accurate, does seem to indicate *some level* of cyanide use at the Crema. Revisionists might argue there were delousing chambers at the Crema or the building was regularly fumigated. Documents like the one for requesting HCN detectors indicate that the use of HCN there was more intense than this.

Scenario:

You're trying to control the spread of lice at a large camp with a typhus epidemic.
You have a room filled dozens of lice-infested corpses at any given time, each held there for a couple days before cremation, where lice can still reproduce and spread.
You have SS staff and inmates working in these buildings, at risk of carrying lice contracted here to elsewhere in the camp.
Control of lice literally becomes priority #1 in this camp.

Is there any chance at all you are not going to heavily fumigate this building?

Even in the barracks there are reports of lice swarming around on the walls and floors. It is common-sense to heavily treat the morgues as well.

What you are saying is completely speculative (since witnesses don't speak of "heavy fumigation"), but possible of course.

But what's the point of all this again? As Rudolph admits, it is scientifically possible for the gas chamber ruins to show lower levels of HCN than the former delousing chambers. The mainstream can explain this.

Meanwhile there's a topic on this thread about evidence revisionists have thoroughly covered and think is legitimate, but refuse to explain within their own framework. The ash layers and grave volume : viewtopic.php?p=1679#p1679

Not being able to answer the most basic questions about evidence is a reason to disregard a historical theory; you don't need an advanced chemistry degree to figure out something is very wrong here.

[TlsMS93]

I'm confused by this thread, what are you trying to show? That a research study was conducted using questionable methodology? Ok, but this just leads us back into the main discussion. Even if we accept Rudolf's numbers even he doesn't think that the chemistry "seals the deal" so to speak.

"Furthermore, I am convinced that chemistry is not the science which can prove or refute any allegations about the Holocaust »rigorously«. We have several circumstantial evidences which, especially together with all the other evidence, allow us to come to the conclusion that the homicidal mass gassings as stated by the eye witnesses can not have taken place. But on the chemical argument no absolute certainty can be built."

I'm not a scientist, so I see no reason to dig too deeply into this, but even Rudolf doesn't see his findings as being definitive. And back to the Polish study

Let me walk you through a clear statistical analysis comparing control samples versus samples from alleged gas chamber sites using the data from Markiewicz's study.

Control Samples (from residential blocks):
All 10 samples showed 0 μg/kg of cyanide

Gas Chamber Samples (averages from triplicate measurements):

Crematorium I:
27, 79, 0, 0, 289, 0, 80 μg/kg

Crematorium II:
617, 28, 0, 8, 17, 164, 292 μg/kg

Crematorium III:
68, 9, 11, 15, 9, 16, 55 μg/kg

Crematorium IV:
43, 35, 497, 0, 13 μg/kg

Crematorium V:
241, 32, 95, 12, 117, 59, 0 μg/kg

Let's make this comparison easy to understand:

Control Group:
- Number of samples: 10
- Average (mean): 0 μg/kg
- Highest value: 0 μg/kg
- Lowest value: 0 μg/kg
- Number of zero readings: 10 (100%)

Gas Chamber Group:
- Number of samples: 31
- Average (mean): 89.5 μg/kg
- Highest value: 617 μg/kg
- Lowest value: 0 μg/kg
- Number of zero readings: 6 (19.4%)

To determine if these differences are statistically meaningful, we can use a simple non-parametric test called the Mann-Whitney U test, which works well when comparing groups with different sizes and when the data isn't normally distributed.

The test shows that the difference between the control group and gas chamber group is statistically significant (p < 0.05). In plain language, this means that the higher cyanide levels found in the alleged gas chamber samples are unlikely to have occurred by chance.

So the Polish study, if the results are accurate, does seem to indicate *some level* of cyanide use at the Crema. Revisionists might argue there were delousing chambers at the Crema or the building was regularly fumigated. Documents like the one for requesting HCN detectors indicate that the use of HCN there was more intense than this.

It makes no sense to have these detectors to gas people since it is said that the victims regularly destroyed the electrical wiring and ventilation ducts, which would make successive gassings unfeasible as Sonderkommando Tauber said. Were the detectors better protected?

[Archie]

Meanwhile there's a topic on this thread about evidence revisionists have thoroughly covered and think is legitimate, but refuse to explain within their own framework. The ash layers and grave volume : viewtopic.php?p=1679#p1679

Oh. My. God. Would you stop pretending like you did well in that thread? You are the only one who was impressed with your AI copypasta.

People can read that thread and decide for themselves who makes a better case. No need for you to take constant victory laps, especially when it's so undeserved. It's gotten embarrassing at this point.

[Archie]

1) Why is there Prussian blue in so many of the delousing rooms? (A: It's from Zyklon.)

2) Given that the Prussian blue can and often does result from Zyklon usage, why on earth would you exclude Prussian blue from testing? You are excluding over 99.9% of the cyanide for no reason. (Well, there is a reason, but it's not a defensible reason).

[bombsaway]

Meanwhile there's a topic on this thread about evidence revisionists have thoroughly covered and think is legitimate, but refuse to explain within their own framework. The ash layers and grave volume : viewtopic.php?p=1679#p1679

Oh. My. God. Would you stop pretending like you did well in that thread? You are the only one who was impressed with your AI copypasta.

People can read that thread and decide for themselves who makes a better case. No need for you to take constant victory laps, especially when it's so undeserved. It's gotten embarrassing at this point.

I'm not "pretending" I did well. I'm stating directly how you [revisionists] didn't explain how a piece of significant evidence which you think is largely legitimate fits into your historical framework. People can judge whether this is important that you haven't, you apparently think it's not (you don't justify why here either). I'm going to keep bringing this up, someone will engage soon I think.

It makes no sense to have these detectors to gas people since it is said that the victims regularly destroyed the electrical wiring and ventilation ducts, which would make successive gassings unfeasible as Sonderkommando Tauber said. Were the detectors better protected?

The HCN detectors were never delivered because they were not commercially produced.

Prufer

"The gas testers which are mentioned in the photocopy of my letter of March 2, 1943, addressed to the SS-Bauleitung of the Auschwitz concentration camp as shown to me here, were looked for by me at the request of the head of said Bauleitung, von Bischoff, in order to install them in the gas chambers of the camp crematoria. When von Bischoff approached me with the respective request he explained to me that, after the poisoning of the detainees in the gas chambers, there were often cases of vapors of hydrogen cyanide still remaining in them even after their aeration, leading to the poisoning of the operating personnel working in these chambers. Therefore, von Bischoff asked me to find out which companies were manufacturing gas testers with which one could measure the concentration of hydrogen cyanide vapors in the gas chambers in order to render the work of the operating personnel risk-free. I was unable to comply with von Bischoff’s request, because I could not identify any company that would have manufactured such gas testers."

The proposed gas detectors conceivably could have been protected with a barrier of some kind.

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... -part.html

[TlsMS93]

This letter mentions a request for 10 gas detectors but does not say for which buildings. Were they all for Krema II? It could be to anticipate a chemical war. In any case, how could the extermination continue with this problem unresolved since it was causing poisoning of personnel? If there were protective masks, this request for detectors is ineffective, as is the poisoning. We have a circular problem here.

[bombsaway]

This letter mentions a request for 10 gas detectors but does not say for which buildings. Were they all for Krema II? It could be to anticipate a chemical war. In any case, how could the extermination continue with this problem unresolved since it was causing poisoning of personnel? If there were protective masks, this request for detectors is ineffective, as is the poisoning. We have a circular problem here.

It's only a problem if you believe the Nazis would have been devoted to the well being of the Jewish slave laborers they were using to clear the gas chambers of Jews they had killed in a program of mass genocide. Within the mainstream framework, the issue was a reduction in the effectiveness of the Jewish SK due to some being poisoned.

[fireofice]

"Rudolf saying results aren't certain proves that we can't come to probabilistic conclusions somehow."

The amount of HCN in the walls of the homicidal gas chambers are insignificant and prove (probabilistically of course, we can't be certain!) they weren't used as homicidal gas chambers. This is because the amount needed to kill the people in the chamber was more than was needed to delouse, as Rudolf demonstrated. Everything else bombsaway is bringing up is a distraction.

The document for the HCN detectors have been demonstrated not to be about Zyklon B. Whether that means it was a forgery, an authentic but nonsensical document, or for a waste incinerator as Arthur Butz said, is immaterial.

[Archie]

The argument that the Germans used the theoretical minimum amount of Zyklon is a quite poor argument, I think. (This is one of their speculations to explain the lack of Prussian blue).

1) You're not going to hit exactly 300 ppm and no more by accident. I have seen no testimonies that hint in any way that there was any attempt to estimate the concentration and carefully hit some magic minimum. The quantity is mentioned only rarely and the implied concentrations are not super low.

2) The 300 ppm is from toxicology. Toxicology is meant to prevent harmful exposure to the public. The values are not calibrated for executions which have the opposite goal. US gas chambers (the only documented use of gas chambers with HCN) typically used around 3,000+ ppm and even with this concentration, some people would survive well over 10 minutes.

3) The testimonies vary on the execution times but as a rule they tend to be fast even though the rooms were quite large and the Zyklon pellets were not well distributed.

[Archie]

You are correct, no know really knows the quantities and it is all "conjecture and an argument of convenience", but from BOTH sides. Those who want to believe in no gassings, believe Rudolf, those who disagree believe Markiewicz. Since neither have conducted any experimentation, whether homicidal gassings took place cannot be deduced from the uncertain evidence of traces found in the Leichenkellers.

The results are radically different but they are not contradictory. Markiewicz deliberately excluded Prussian blue. That's why his results are so much lower. If Rudolf had done that procedure (exclude 99.9% of the cyanide), he also would have gotten values near zero.

You are just discarding evidence because you don't like what it says. Chemical results from the walls IS EVIDENCE. It's HARD EVIDENCE unlike most of the other so-called Holocaust evidence. And you just brush it off because they didn't do a bunch of experimental gassings which you know very well will never be done.

If there were blue stains all over LK1, you would be trumpeting that non-stop. Because it would be evidence for Zyklon usage in that room. Lack of Prussian blue is evidence against your thesis. Is it possible Zyklon was used regularly in these chambers and, for some reason, the expected evidence (Prussian blue) did not form? Under certain conditions it is imaginable. That's all you can argue.

[bombsaway]

"Rudolf saying results aren't certain proves that we can't come to probabilistic conclusions somehow."

The amount of HCN in the walls of the homicidal gas chambers are insignificant and prove (probabilistically of course, we can't be certain!) they weren't used as homicidal gas chambers. This is because the amount needed to kill the people in the chamber was more than was needed to delouse, as Rudolf demonstrated. Everything else bombsaway is bringing up is a distraction.

The document for the HCN detectors have been demonstrated not to be about Zyklon B. Whether that means it was a forgery, an authentic but nonsensical document, or for a waste incinerator as Arthur Butz said, is immaterial.

"This is because the amount needed to kill the people in the chamber was more than was needed to delouse, as Rudolph demonstrated"

Huh? Rudolph doesn't say this:

Hence, in order to kill all individuals in a hypothetical gas chamber within ten minutes, an average concentration during those ten minutes of some 0.4% would have to be applied. Faster execution times would require proportionally higher concentrations, with a time of five minutes requiring almost 1% of HCN in the air, which is a commonly used concentration during fumigations, also in disinfestation chambers, in order to kill pests such as fleas and lice. (See Rudolf 2023, esp. pp. 227-236.)

Note that Rudolph says 1% or 10,000 PPM is needed for killing in 5 minutes.

Here's the AI summary of this source

https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compou ... -Constants

According to multiple sources in the text:

546 ppm was reported as an average fatal concentration after a 10-minute exposure
300 ppm is described as "immediately fatal"
200 ppm is reported as "likely to be fatal after 10 min"
150 ppm is reported as "likely to be fatal within 30 min"
120-150 ppm is described as "dangerous to life and may lead to death after 0.5 to 1 hr"
50-60 ppm can be tolerated without immediate or late effects for 20 min to 1 hr

The document indicates there is a steep dose-response curve, meaning small changes in concentration can have dramatic differences in effect. The lethality also depends significantly on duration of exposure - a higher concentration for a shorter time may be equivalent in effect to a lower concentration for a longer time.
Notably, the document mentions that concentrations between 7,000-12,000 ppm were estimated to be fatal after just 5 minutes of exposure for workers wearing respirators but lacking skin protection, highlighting how the chemical can also be absorbed through the skin.

Here you can see the studies
https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compou ... Fatal-Dose


It seems like Rudolf is overestimating these data points by at least 10x.

What am I supposed to think here? The Holohoax conspiracy extends to the scientific community?

In any case delousing chambers were regularly sealed for days, so even if we accept Rudolf's strange strange numbers, there's a massive difference (10x?)) in exposure.


"The document for the HCN detectors have been demonstrated not to be about Zyklon B"

How? They are noted in the document as being display devices for prussic acid.

[fireofice]

It's possible I am misremembering exactly what Rudolf argued, I'm not going to go back and check right now. Regardless, there did need a significant amount of Zyklon B in the room to the point where it would have been comparable to the HCN in the delousing chambers for the story to be true. And no, I'm not going to read your AI slop. But looking through the sources, it looks like Rudolf is using a different standard, which is how much to kill a room full of people whereas the literature you're citing is based on safety protocols. This has already been explained to you.

[Nessie]

You are correct, no know really knows the quantities and it is all "conjecture and an argument of convenience", but from BOTH sides. Those who want to believe in no gassings, believe Rudolf, those who disagree believe Markiewicz. Since neither have conducted any experimentation, whether homicidal gassings took place cannot be deduced from the uncertain evidence of traces found in the Leichenkellers.

The results are radically different but they are not contradictory. Markiewicz deliberately excluded Prussian blue. That's why his results are so much lower. If Rudolf had done that procedure (exclude 99.9% of the cyanide), he also would have gotten values near zero.

You are just discarding evidence because you don't like what it says.

That is clearly incorrect, because I am also saying that studies that explain why residues are low and how they are not inconsistent with repeated homicidal gassings, are not reliable. Not just Markiewicz, but also the Green study;

https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... chemistry/

Chemical results from the walls IS EVIDENCE. It's HARD EVIDENCE unlike most of the other so-called Holocaust evidence.

It is indeed evidence, forensic evidence. It is also disputed, as a lot of forensic evidence can be disputed. The way the evidence was gathered and interpreted is under dispute, with two sides coming to opposing conclusions.

And you just brush it off because they didn't do a bunch of experimental gassings which you know very well will never be done.

There are good and obvious reasons for stating that experimentation is needed, to make the conclusion more reliable. There are ways to at least attempt to replicate a Leichenkeller, without using people, to get more meaningful results, but it would be a controversial and again, disputed action. If the experiments favoured Markiewicz and Green, all revisionists would come up with reasons to dispute it, so we would be back at square one.

If there were blue stains all over LK1, you would be trumpeting that non-stop. Because it would be evidence for Zyklon usage in that room. Lack of Prussian blue is evidence against your thesis. Is it possible Zyklon was used regularly in these chambers and, for some reason, the expected evidence (Prussian blue) did not form? Under certain conditions it is imaginable. That's all you can argue.

Correct. I think that the argument that; washing, painting, repeated limited exposure for homicidal gassings compared to much longer exposure for the delousing chambers and the destruction and exposure of the Leichenkellers, explains the lack of residue. But I am not a chemist and do not assert, as others do, that the chemistry leading to that conclusion is correct.

The reasons why I think Markiewicz and Green are correct, is because of the evidence of homicidal gas chambers in operation, versus revisionist multiple theories about the use of that space, none of which can be evidenced. Then, logically, if you cannot work out how something happened, but it is evidenced to have happened, it still happened. To argue against that, is logically flawed. The chemistry may not be on my side, but evidence and logic is.

[Hektor]

Quick Summary: In 1994, the Poles (Markiewicz et al) published a study responding to Leuchter (and Rudolf) who had shown that the fumigation chambers contained significant cyanide compounds while the "gas chambers" had at best only trace amounts. They did not want to say the revisionist results were correct, so they bent over backwards to contrive a silly test that excluded Prussian blue from the analysis. They got results that were near zero across the board so they could spin the results as being "similar," not massively different.

A Study of the Cyanide Compounds Content In The Walls Of The Gas Chambers in the Former Auschwitz and Birkenau Concentration Camps
https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... port.shtml

...]

Here is the explanation they give for whey Prussian blue shouldn't be excluded.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GdrqFJSWIAA ... me=900x900

They are just outright lying here. They know damn well why there's Prussian blue in the fumigations chambers. It's because Zyklon B was used in those rooms and, under the right conditions, the HCN in the Zyklon will react with iron present in the walls. And that's what happened. To suggest that this is "hard to imagine" or that perhaps it's blue paint is ridiculous to the point of being insulting.
....

I presume you mean "shouldn't be INcluded"... or should be excluded. It's a stable cyanide compound... And that's what's interesting so long after the supposed event. It's actually the other compounds that may be ignored. Especially when that is stuff within a natural framework as cyanides indeed do exist naturally and are also part of some other building materials...


That said their behavior was rather odd. Their Report DID NOT provide any material proof that would warrant the belief that those buildings were used for homicidal purposes.

As a matter of fact there is nothing that would warrant that in terms of evidences presented ever. Now people will say that testimonies are evidences, too. But granting that... The testimonies given are to a larger extend preposterous, some are more cleverly done, but still don't hold up to scrutiny and what is even more important. The vast majority of potential witnesses didn't notice at the time what was alleged, just heard about this on a later stage. So testimony doesn't help the Exterminationist thesis neither.