The Prevarications of Markiewicz (Prussian Blue)

[bombsaway]

If you want to use the Dachau fumigation chambers as an argument, you need to 1) determine why Prussian blue did not form in that location, 2) show that the same explanation applies to Krema II, etc.

Also, with some structures we should be alert to the possibility of postwar modifications. Any wall that has been reconstructed would not have staining. I don't think that's the explanation for Dachau, but it is a general point.

I see. Well Crema I gas chamber was probably heated before use and maybe only 15 gassings took place there, with gas quickly vented out. Quick ventilation isn't an important factor in absorption?

Cremas II-V gas chambers were also heated and vented. And maybe had this special paint as well.

So all of these objections (from the revisionist side) seem very insubstantial to me, and you're relying on assumptions as well. Meanwhile you can't answer basic questions about your own narrative -- seemingly no narrative even exists that fits with and explains evidence. If you want to understand why you are viewed as being silly, this is it. You're not going to be taken seriously by the historical establishment until you start playing their rules (creating narratives that fit with evidence) or rewrite the rules, which you haven't even attempted to do either.

The walls of the Krema II and III were brick with plaster. Many people on both sides have examined the ruins and I have not see any report of any special paint. If that were true, it would have come up by now.

The walls of the morgue consist of double brick masonry with a layer of waterproofing in between for insulation (ibid., pp. 325, 327). The interior walls are plastered with a hard, cement-rich material, the ceiling and support pillars of reinforced concrete show the marks of wooden planking and are therefore not plastered. The roof, made of reinforced concrete, is insulated on the outside by a layer of tar, which is protected from environmental and mechanical damage by a rather thin, screed-like layer of cement covering it. The layers of tar both on top of the roof as well as between the two brick walls were indispensable as a water barrier due to the high groundwater in the swampy region of Birkenau. Both morgues had several drains. (Chemistry of Auschwitz, 114)

I don't know why Prussian Blue didn't form at Dachau, and it's not my responsibility. All I have to demonstrate is that this is a variable that you're not taking into account. As you tacitly admitted, Rudolf's statement is insufficient in terms of explaining this.

The assumptions you are making here, and is necessary for your case are as follows

Special paint was used at Dachau and Belsen which prevented formation (all we have to go by is Rudolf's statement that he doesn't qualify -- based on the very elementary mistake I saw him make with regards to the toxicity study -- which led him to double the lethality number -- I'm not inclined to take his word for it)

That special paint was not used at the Crema ii-v

If it had been, that special paint would have been noted by investigators (that special paint would have survived the detonation of the crema and decades of exposure to elements)

No response to the points about ventilation and heating in the gas chambers, but it seems you are assuming these would have no effect on staining. However Rudolf said that it wouldn't happen in a dry environment. I don't think you can make a definitive statement here.

In sum, your arguments about the staining are based on assumptions, and largely speculative. As I said earlier, if you're trying to prove the scientific impossibility of gassings you have to go further than this. If you're making a probabilistic argument, there's a lot of subjectivity here. Similarly I could make probabilistic arguments against revisionism (based on say keeping a conspiracy that included many hundreds of thousands --the survivors of resettlement-- secret would be next to impossible, a .00001% chance )

Rudolf also points to dry and warm conditions being pivotal.

It is an assumption to say these conditions weren't present in the gas chambers.

It also seems to me to be giant assumption to say that gas being ventilated out quickly isn't going to make a substantial difference in formation, and that the stains would form under very sporadic gassings (in Crema 1 only 10,000 were said to have been killed. So maybe there were only 20 or 30 gassings there)

What isn't speculative is the inability of revisionists to answer basic questions about their narrative. And of course the no direct evidence thing. You either have to answer to these challenges, or argue for them being unimportant. My advice to revisionists would be stop focusing on science that you don't have a grasp on (and using Rudolf as an authority here when he was shown to deeply unreliable on the first thing I investigated him on) and focus on answering these much more basic questions.

[curioussoul]

If you want to use the Dachau fumigation chambers as an argument, you need to 1) determine why Prussian blue did not form in that location, 2) show that the same explanation applies to Krema II, etc.

Also, with some structures we should be alert to the possibility of postwar modifications. Any wall that has been reconstructed would not have staining. I don't think that's the explanation for Dachau, but it is a general point.

I see. Well Crema I gas chamber was probably heated before use and maybe only 15 gassings took place there, with gas quickly vented out. Quick ventilation isn't an important factor in absorption?

Cremas II-V gas chambers were also heated and vented. And maybe had this special paint as well.

So all of these objections (from the revisionist side) seem very insubstantial to me, and you're relying on assumptions as well. Meanwhile you can't answer basic questions about your own narrative -- seemingly no narrative even exists that fits with and explains evidence. If you want to understand why you are viewed as being silly, this is it. You're not going to be taken seriously by the historical establishment until you start playing their rules (creating narratives that fit with evidence) or rewrite the rules, which you haven't even attempted to do either.

The walls of the Krema II and III were brick with plaster. Many people on both sides have examined the ruins and I have not see any report of any special paint. If that were true, it would have come up by now.

The walls of the morgue consist of double brick masonry with a layer of waterproofing in between for insulation (ibid., pp. 325, 327). The interior walls are plastered with a hard, cement-rich material, the ceiling and support pillars of reinforced concrete show the marks of wooden planking and are therefore not plastered. The roof, made of reinforced concrete, is insulated on the outside by a layer of tar, which is protected from environmental and mechanical damage by a rather thin, screed-like layer of cement covering it. The layers of tar both on top of the roof as well as between the two brick walls were indispensable as a water barrier due to the high groundwater in the swampy region of Birkenau. Both morgues had several drains. (Chemistry of Auschwitz, 114)

I don't know why Prussian Blue didn't form at Dachau, and it's not my responsibility. All I have to demonstrate is that this is a variable that you're not taking into account. As you tacitly admitted, Rudolf's statement is insufficient in terms of explaining this.

The assumptions you are making here, and is necessary for your case are as follows

Special paint was used at Dachau and Belsen (all we have to go by is Rudolf's statement that he doesn't qualify -- based on the very elementary mistake I saw him make with regards to the toxicity study -- which led him to double the lethality number -- I'm not inclined to take his word for it)

That special paint was not used at the Crema ii-v

If it had been, that special paint would have been noted by investigators (that special paint would have survived the detonation of the crema and decades of exposure to elements)

No response to the points about ventilation and heating in the gas chambers, but it seems you are assuming these would have no effect on staining. However Rudolf said that it wouldn't happen in a dry environment. I don't think you can make a definitive statement here.

In sum, your arguments about the staining are based on assumptions, and largely speculative. As I said earlier, if you're trying to prove the scientific impossibility of gassings you have to go further than this. If you're making a probabilistic argument, there's a lot of subjectivity here. Similarly I could make probabilistic arguments against revisionism (based on say keeping a conspiracy that included many hundreds of thousands --the survivors of resettlement-- secret would be next to impossible, a .00001% chance )

Rudolf also points to dry and warm conditions being pivotal.

It is an assumption to say these conditions weren't present in the gas chambers.

It also seems to me to be giant assumption to say that gas being ventilated out quickly isn't going to make a substantial difference in formation, and that the stains would form under very sporadic gassings (in Crema 1 only 10,000 were said to have been killed. So maybe there were only 20 or 30 gassings there)

What isn't speculative is the inability of revisionists to answer basic questions about their narrative. And of course the no direct evidence thing. You either have to answer to these challenges, or argue for them being unimportant. My advice to revisionists would be stop focusing on science that you don't have a grasp on (and using Rudolf as an authority here when he was shown to deeply unreliable on the first thing I investigated him on) and focus on answering these much more basic questions.

The antirevisionist line on this topic is interesting. Some of you seem to favor the "muddy the waters" line, arguing there is "uncertainty" and that no conclusions can be drawn from the available data. Oddly, this approach differs a lot from the regular orthodox approach when it comes to evidencing the Holocaust.

For you, the logic seems to have essentially been reduced to either one of these two arguments:

1) They didn't use enough Zyklon B in the gas chamber for Prussian Blue to form.

or:

2) The gas chamber was somehow different from the delousing chambers and therefore Prussian Blue couldn't form.

In regards to (1), we all agree that huge quantities of Zyklon B, in totality, would have been used in the gas chambers even if most Zyklon B was used for delousings. Historians disagree wildly on how much of the total supply was used for gassings and only base their opinion on what's convenient for their follow-up arguments, but that's a different story. Given the fact that Rudolf has documented, in his book, numerous cases of small-scale delousings inside of newly-renovated churches causing massive discolorations on the walls, it seems unreasonable to suggest that the quantity of Zyklon B was insufficient for Prussian Blue to form. Why exactly was it insufficient?

In regards to (2), the gas chambers were much better suited for the formation of Prussian Blue compared to the delousing chambers. The environment in the semi-basements consisted of freshly set concrete, wet and damp walls - optimal for Prussian Blue to form. The delousings chambers on the other hand were above ground, dry and covered in a plaster.

Would you stop lying about revisionists being "unable to answer basic questions about their narrative"? Every single substantive question posed has been answered. If you're still on about the cremains at the AR camps, that's been answered on multiple occasions - you've just ignored our answers because they're not convenient for your narrative.

[curioussoul]

The scientific evidence is that there are lower traces inside the Leichenkeller than inside a delousing chamber.

That's correct. And there are no traces of Prussian Blue in the alleged homicidal gas chambers, despite a single gassing being sufficient for Prussian Blue to form, as shown by churches less susceptible to the formation fo Prussian Blue being discolored from a mere singular delousing after a renovation. That would seem to vindicate Rudolf's scientific position as opposed to the mere historiographic speculation used by historians to argue gassings must have taken places because some of the witnesses say so. Obviously, scientific evidence is of better evidentiary value than conjecture and flimsy witness testimony.

Given the alleged homicidal gas chambers were chemically optimal for Prussian Blue to form, it's odd this never happened. You would have to find a scientifically plausable explanation for this in order to validate your hypothesis.

[bombsaway]

In regards to (2), the gas chambers were much better suited for the formation of Prussian Blue compared to the delousing chambers. The environment in the semi-basements consisted of freshly set concrete, wet and damp walls - optimal for Prussian Blue to form. The delousings chambers on the other hand were above ground, dry and covered in a plaster.

This is speculative. The witness accounts and layouts say the chambers were pre heated at the exact time of gas dispersal, and then the chambers were swiftly cleared of gas. So I could argue that conditions were actually more optimal for staining at Dachau, where gas remained in the chamber at high concentration for days at a time and there would be no reason to heat.

You are also speculating about the chamber walls being "plastered" at Dachau and these other places but not at the Crema.

The failure here is the speculative nature of the complaints.

Would you stop lying about revisionists being "unable to answer basic questions about their narrative"? Every single substantive question posed has been answered. If you're still on about the cremains at the AR camps, that's been answered on multiple occasions - you've just ignored our answers because they're not convenient for your narrative.

I take an accusation of lying very seriously. But I don't think even Archie believes that revisionists have offered a thorough explanation of the ash layers Kola describes. The best response was, 'they threw some ash in with other debris'. Is that what you're talking about to describe ash layers stretching across enormous graves (surface area 300 meters according to Kola, with initial ash layer 1 meter thick, and numerous other ones in this single grave.

I think the notion I am lying when this is the best response is laughable. In light of your very serious accusation of me lying about revisionists not explaining the grave and ash layer volume, I demand corroboration of this claim.

[fireofice]

The best response was, 'they threw some ash in with other debris'.

Yeah and that was a perfectly fine response. There's literally nothing to explain. It's like if I said "if the holocaust happened, explain why birds exist" and then doing a victory dance when you don't answer and say there is nothing to be explained.

[Archie]

The antirevisionist line on this topic is interesting. Some of you seem to favor the "muddy the waters" line, arguing there is "uncertainty" and that no conclusions can be drawn from the available data. Oddly, this approach differs a lot from the regular orthodox approach when it comes to evidencing the Holocaust.

For you, the logic seems to have essentially been reduced to either one of these two arguments:

1) They didn't use enough Zyklon B in the gas chamber for Prussian Blue to form.

or:

2) The gas chamber was somehow different from the delousing chambers and therefore Prussian Blue couldn't form.

In regards to (1), we all agree that huge quantities of Zyklon B, in totality, would have been used in the gas chambers even if most Zyklon B was used for delousings. Historians disagree wildly on how much of the total supply was used for gassings and only base their opinion on what's convenient for their follow-up arguments, but that's a different story. Given the fact that Rudolf has documented, in his book, numerous cases of small-scale delousings inside of newly-renovated churches causing massive discolorations on the walls, it seems unreasonable to suggest that the quantity of Zyklon B was insufficient for Prussian Blue to form. Why exactly was it insufficient?

In regards to (2), the gas chambers were much better suited for the formation of Prussian Blue compared to the delousing chambers. The environment in the semi-basements consisted of freshly set concrete, wet and damp walls - optimal for Prussian Blue to form. The delousings chambers on the other hand were above ground, dry and covered in a plaster.

Would you stop lying about revisionists being "unable to answer basic questions about their narrative"? Every single substantive question posed has been answered. If you're still on about the cremains at the AR camps, that's been answered on multiple occasions - you've just ignored our answers because they're not convenient for your narrative.

Re: the bolded part, this is sometimes called "epistemological nihilism." And they are employing it selectively here because they know the evidence goes against them. "We just can't know! It's all speculation! Let's talk about something else, please!" If the evidence were more favorable, they wouldn't be bothering with that.

The anti-revisionist replies on this from the beginning have had a "defense attorney" flavor to them in the sense that they are arguments that no objective, disinterested person would ever make. These are contrived arguments that you'd only offer if you are arguing a side and have to come up with whatever you can. The earliest talking point they came up with was that they used very little Zyklon. Nobody ever suggested this until after Leuchter and just on a gut level it doesn't make much sense to say hundreds of thousands of people were gassed yet the rooms in question had only very limited Zyklon exposure. Or saying that it must have washed off over the years which was/is another popular talking point which is just wrong.

[Archie]

No response to the points about ventilation and heating in the gas chambers, but it seems you are assuming these would have no effect on staining. However Rudolf said that it wouldn't happen in a dry environment. I don't think you can make a definitive statement here.

You once again failed to make a real argument and are whining about people not responding. Heating. What about it? You explain why "heating" prevented the formation of Prussian blue and if it's good enough to be worth responding to, maybe somebody will.

In sum, your arguments about the staining are based on assumptions, and largely speculative. As I said earlier, if you're trying to prove the scientific impossibility of gassings you have to go further than this. If you're making a probabilistic argument, there's a lot of subjectivity here. Similarly I could make probabilistic arguments against revisionism (based on say keeping a conspiracy that included many hundreds of thousands --the survivors of resettlement-- secret would be next to impossible, a .00001% chance )

You are grasping to find a scenario where it might have been possible and then you are assuming that must be what happened.

[Nessie]

The scientific evidence is that there are lower traces inside the Leichenkeller than inside a delousing chamber.

That's correct. And there are no traces of Prussian Blue in the alleged homicidal gas chambers, despite a single gassing being sufficient for Prussian Blue to form, as shown by churches less susceptible to the formation fo Prussian Blue being discolored from a mere singular delousing after a renovation. That would seem to vindicate Rudolf's scientific position as opposed to the mere historiographic speculation used by historians to argue gassings must have taken places because some of the witnesses say so. Obviously, scientific evidence is of better evidentiary value than conjecture and flimsy witness testimony.

Given the alleged homicidal gas chambers were chemically optimal for Prussian Blue to form, it's odd this never happened. You would have to find a scientifically plausable explanation for this in order to validate your hypothesis.

The only way to do that, as I quoted Rudolf admitting, is to conduct experiments exposing plaster to Zyklon B, with conditions that replicate inside the Leichenkeller during a homicidal gassing. What both sides have, are competing hypothesis, with revisionists thinking they have the victory, because the residues in the Leichenkeller are low, which would be consistent with it not being used for homicidal gassings.

However, revisionists then take a loss, because they cannot evidence what happened instead of homicidal gassings. Instead, they come up with various contradictory hypotheses that the Leichenkeller was being used in 1943-4 as a corpse store, for mass showering, as a delousing chamber and bomb shelter.

Historians agree and have the evidence to prove it was being used for homicidal gassings. They then take the logical victory, since logically, if it is evidenced, it happened and if the chemistry appears to not be in their favour, then counterintuitively, homicidal gassings does not leave the residues expected. However, when the conditions are taken into account, with repeated washing, painting, short exposures and quick ventilation and the subsequent destruction and exposure of the Leichenkellers, the lack of residue has scientifically, plausible, logical explanations. It only appears that the revisionist hypothesis about lack of residue is a victory.

[Nessie]

The antirevisionist line on this topic is interesting. Some of you seem to favor the "muddy the waters" line, arguing there is "uncertainty" and that no conclusions can be drawn from the available data. ....

Re: the bolded part, this is sometimes called "epistemological nihilism." And they are employing it selectively here because they know the evidence goes against them. "We just can't know! It's all speculation! Let's talk about something else, please!"...

I have quoted Rudolf admitting to uncertainty.

"Which factor dominates in cement mortars and concretes — the conducive larger interface or the detrimental thicker CaCO; film — will depend largely on the water content of the wall and on the CO; content of the air and could be calibrated only by experiments."

"Experiments determining the mechanism and speed of the formation of complex iron cyanides in various relevant masonry materials should be conducted."

On page 366, after his signature, Rudolf states;

"Of course, I may be wrong. There are many loose ends to the inquiry, some of which I have addressed throughout this study."

He then lists issues that need to be addressed in chapter 10, Research Desiderata, including "a new set of core samples" to be taken. Every single revisionist, whenever they discuss Rudolf, ignore that he accepts he may be wrong and that all he has is a hypothesis that needs further testing and experimentation. That admission greatly weakens the argument that revisionists have to reply on, since the evidence is not in their favour. It also explains the logical flaw in the revisionist argument.

The admission also explains why Rudolf ran into criticism and eventual ostracism from the academic world. He came to a definitive conclusion from scientific evidence he admitted was incomplete and inconclusive, a conclusion that flew opposite to what was evidenced to have happened. To overturn all the witness, documentary, physical and circumstantial evidence for the operation of the Leichenkeller, needs far more than a scientific conclusion that "may be wrong".

[bombsaway]

No response to the points about ventilation and heating in the gas chambers, but it seems you are assuming these would have no effect on staining. However Rudolf said that it wouldn't happen in a dry environment. I don't think you can make a definitive statement here.

You once again failed to make a real argument and are whining about people not responding. Heating. What about it? You explain why "heating" prevented the formation of Prussian blue and if it's good enough to be worth responding to, maybe somebody will.

Rudolf said "Warm, dry walls, however, don’t tend to absorb hydrogen cyanide"

A room that would be heated would have warm dry walls.

You are grasping to find a scenario where it might have been possible and then you are assuming that must be what happened.

Your notions are based on even more definitive assumptions about what would have or wouldn't have happened.

Nazis preheated rooms (maximizing dispersal which also means no HCN condensation on wall ) - not possible - you say.

But it makes sense to me, based on Rudolf's statements.

[fireofice]

A room that would be heated would have warm dry walls.

None of the rooms were heated and the heater that was going to be used was cancelled:

The hot-air supply unit for Leichenkeller 1 must be dropped because of the change in design and will be put into storage by the ZBL.

That's from a March 25, 1943 memo. The only other time the room would be heated would be from the body heat (which would also cause it to be wet). All other times it would be cool.

[bombsaway]

A room that would be heated would have warm dry walls.

None of the rooms were heated and the heater that was going to be used was cancelled:

The hot-air supply unit for Leichenkeller 1 must be dropped because of the change in design and will be put into storage by the ZBL.

That's from a March 25, 1943 memo. The only other time the room would be heated would be from the body heat (which would also cause it to be wet). All other times it would be cool.

"Letter from SS-Sturmbannführer Jahrling to Topf & Sons, March 6 1943

Subject: KL Auschwitz Krematorien II and III

In accordance with your suggestion, the service agrees that cellar 1 should be preheated with the air coming from the rooms of the 3 forced draught installations. The supply and installation of the ductwork and blowers necessary to this end are to be effected as soon as possible. As you point out in your above-mentioned letter, execution should commence this week. We would ask you to send in triplicate detailed quote for supply and installation.

At the same time, we would ask you to send an additional quotation for the modification of the air-extraction installation in the undressing room." (Pressac, 221)

According to Pressac, the system malfunctioned so that's why they removed ase evidenced in the other memo. Why they would need to go to such lengths to heat "morgues", is another question revisionists haven't answered.

In any case, it appears the system was still used in Krema III. And that "portable coke braziers" were used to preheat the room (this is in the Van Pelt report https://www.hdot.org/vanpelt/ , I need to track down sources).

Nevertheless even without preheating the room, body temperature would probably raise temps sufficiently in most cases if the room was significantly packed and it wasn't too cold outside. It's not scientifically sound to compare two different things and expect similar results.

At the very least the delousing chambers were subjected to higher concentration HCN for much longer and weren't heated.

This fails on a basic level if you are making the comparison, and there's still no definitive understanding of how the HCN binding to the walls thing even works, or that hasn't been presented here.

[fireofice]

Why they would need to go to such lengths to heat "morgues", is another question revisionists haven't answered.

"Hasn't been answered" except by Rudolf and Mattogno who provide evidence that morgues do indeed use heaters. But yeah, other than that, there's been no answer.

portable coke braziers

Based solely on testimony from Sehn, which makes no sense as the body heat was sufficient. Mattogno has also gone over this.

[Archie]

No response to the points about ventilation and heating in the gas chambers, but it seems you are assuming these would have no effect on staining. However Rudolf said that it wouldn't happen in a dry environment. I don't think you can make a definitive statement here.

You once again failed to make a real argument and are whining about people not responding. Heating. What about it? You explain why "heating" prevented the formation of Prussian blue and if it's good enough to be worth responding to, maybe somebody will.

Rudolf said "Warm, dry walls, however, don’t tend to absorb hydrogen cyanide"

A room that would be heated would have warm dry walls.

You are grasping to find a scenario where it might have been possible and then you are assuming that must be what happened.

Your notions are based on even more definitive assumptions about what would have or wouldn't have happened.

Nazis preheated rooms (maximizing dispersal which also means no HCN condensation on wall ) - not possible - you say.

But it makes sense to me, based on Rudolf's statements.

LK1 was a cellar in swampy area. Do you really think it was dry? And you are certain of this?

If your theory is that they heated the room so that the HCN would sublimate more rapidly, that would only be necessary just prior to a gassing. Briefly warming the air (whether with a heater or body heat) wouldn't be enough to evaporate all of the moisture in the walls. And with the body heat, that would add more moisture.

[bombsaway]

You once again failed to make a real argument and are whining about people not responding. Heating. What about it? You explain why "heating" prevented the formation of Prussian blue and if it's good enough to be worth responding to, maybe somebody will.

Rudolf said "Warm, dry walls, however, don’t tend to absorb hydrogen cyanide"

A room that would be heated would have warm dry walls.

You are grasping to find a scenario where it might have been possible and then you are assuming that must be what happened.

Your notions are based on even more definitive assumptions about what would have or wouldn't have happened.

Nazis preheated rooms (maximizing dispersal which also means no HCN condensation on wall ) - not possible - you say.

But it makes sense to me, based on Rudolf's statements.

LK1 was a cellar in swampy area. Do you really think it was dry? And you are certain of this?

If your theory is that they heated the room so that the HCN would sublimate more rapidly, that would only be necessary just prior to a gassing. Briefly warming the air (whether with a heater or body heat) wouldn't be enough to evaporate all of the moisture in the walls. And with the body heat, that would add more moisture.

And what if they washed the walls after gassings, which I think witnesses say they did, and would make sense given the blood vomit feces left by hundreds of people dying

The analogy you're trying to make delousing room = gas chamber, would never be taken seriously in a scientific setting, because there are so many unknowns and definite known differences. Any scientist worth their salt, including Rudolf it seems, would have to specify uncertainty about the conclusions they would be drawing. That's why this argument is weak sauce. It's weak circumstantial evidence of no gassings.