The Prevarications of Markiewicz (Prussian Blue)

[fireofice]

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

Addressed by Rudolf:

Furthermore, the opinion is occasionally expressed that the homicidal gas chamber was hosed down with water after every gassing. This assertion forgets that it would have taken many hours before the “gas chamber” could have been cleared of bodies (they had to be cremated, which is time-consuming and lasts many days, after all), that the hydrogen cyanide does not merely sit on the surface of the wall, but rather, due to its extremely high diffusion capacity, penetrates deeply into the wall within a few hours, and that a water hose would be of no assistance in this regard, quite apart from the fact that such an action would have had the effect of causing the consequently wet walls to adsorb even more hydrogen cyanide during the next hypothetical gassing. In addition, the samples taken from the ceiling, which was certainly not hosed down, likewise show no reproducible cyanide concentrations. (The Chemistry of Auschwitz, 360)

[bombsaway]

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

Addressed by Rudolf:

Furthermore, the opinion is occasionally expressed that the homicidal gas chamber was hosed down with water after every gassing. This assertion forgets that it would have taken many hours before the “gas chamber” could have been cleared of bodies (they had to be cremated, which is time-consuming and lasts many days, after all), that the hydrogen cyanide does not merely sit on the surface of the wall, but rather, due to its extremely high diffusion capacity, penetrates deeply into the wall within a few hours, and that a water hose would be of no assistance in this regard, quite apart from the fact that such an action would have had the effect of causing the consequently wet walls to adsorb even more hydrogen cyanide during the next hypothetical gassing. In addition, the samples taken from the ceiling, which was certainly not hosed down, likewise show no reproducible cyanide concentrations. (The Chemistry of Auschwitz, 360)

The chamber would be cleared of gas very fast first of all. What evidence does Rudolf have that it binds to water quickly? What evidence does he have that it would happen if gas concentration was small? What evidence does he have that there's "special paint" at Dachau and that there wasn't "special paint" at the Kremas? Maybe it was regular paint? What about the consistent high temperatures compared to other gassings?

This fails as an experiment because the alleged gas chambers and delousing rooms are not analogous, even in terms of definite details known about both.

[Archie]

The chamber would be cleared of gas very fast first of all. What evidence does Rudolf have that it binds to water quickly? What evidence does he have that it would happen if gas concentration was small? What evidence does he have that there's "special paint" at Dachau and that there wasn't "special paint" at the Kremas? Maybe it was regular paint? What about the consistent high temperatures compared to other gassings?

This fails as an experiment because the alleged gas chambers and delousing rooms are not analogous, even in terms of definite details known about both.

They don't need to be exactly the same. The key is whether the "gas chambers" would have had the right conditions for Prussian blue to form. They did. Germar Rudolf:

I had started only in the spring of 1991 to investigate the conditions beneficial to the formation of Iron Blue. It was not before the summer of 1991 that I came to understand that moist walls, coupled with a minimum of alkalinity, were the main factors in the formation of Iron Blue in walls exposed to hydrogen cyanide (HCN) gas. I came to that insight only because an engineer assisted me by lending me several books on the chemistry of cement and concrete.

It's not like where trying to explain why the gas chamber walls had 800 ppm and the fumigation chambers has 1200 ppm. We're trying to explain why the gas chamber walls have zero and the most likely explanation is that Zyklon was not used much if at all in those rooms.

[Nessie]

......

They don't need to be exactly the same. The key is whether the "gas chambers" would have had the right conditions for Prussian blue to form. They did. Germar Rudolf:

I had started only in the spring of 1991 to investigate the conditions beneficial to the formation of Iron Blue. It was not before the summer of 1991 that I came to understand that moist walls, coupled with a minimum of alkalinity, were the main factors in the formation of Iron Blue in walls exposed to hydrogen cyanide (HCN) gas. I came to that insight only because an engineer assisted me by lending me several books on the chemistry of cement and concrete.

It's not like where trying to explain why the gas chamber walls had 800 ppm and the fumigation chambers has 1200 ppm. We're trying to explain why the gas chamber walls have zero and the most likely explanation is that Zyklon was not used much if at all in those rooms.

"They did". You are so certain, yet "The Chemistry of Auschwitz" concludes on page 366;

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

Rudolf goes on to list issues that he thinks need to be addressed in chapter 10, Research Desiderata, which includes "a new set of core samples" to be taken. He is not as certain as you are. No wonder you are ignoring that point.

[Archie]

......

They don't need to be exactly the same. The key is whether the "gas chambers" would have had the right conditions for Prussian blue to form. They did. Germar Rudolf:

I had started only in the spring of 1991 to investigate the conditions beneficial to the formation of Iron Blue. It was not before the summer of 1991 that I came to understand that moist walls, coupled with a minimum of alkalinity, were the main factors in the formation of Iron Blue in walls exposed to hydrogen cyanide (HCN) gas. I came to that insight only because an engineer assisted me by lending me several books on the chemistry of cement and concrete.

It's not like where trying to explain why the gas chamber walls had 800 ppm and the fumigation chambers has 1200 ppm. We're trying to explain why the gas chamber walls have zero and the most likely explanation is that Zyklon was not used much if at all in those rooms.

"They did". You are so certain, yet "The Chemistry of Auschwitz" concludes on page 366;

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

Rudolf goes on to list issues that he thinks need to be addressed in chapter 10, Research Desiderata, which includes "a new set of core samples" to be taken. He is not as certain as you are. No wonder you are ignoring that point.

Lol. Says the least nuanced, most dogmatic poster on any of the Holocaust discussion forums. Says the guy whose side insists there can there can no debate or discussion on the matter at all (i.e., 100% certainty). Germar's modesty and caution at the end are indicative of his scientific approach.

If you disagree with me on the specific point I made, let's see your evidence that the walls of the UNDERGROUND CELLARS were DRY as a bone.

[Nessie]

......

They don't need to be exactly the same. The key is whether the "gas chambers" would have had the right conditions for Prussian blue to form. They did. Germar Rudolf:



It's not like where trying to explain why the gas chamber walls had 800 ppm and the fumigation chambers has 1200 ppm. We're trying to explain why the gas chamber walls have zero and the most likely explanation is that Zyklon was not used much if at all in those rooms.

"They did". You are so certain, yet "The Chemistry of Auschwitz" concludes on page 366;

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

Rudolf goes on to list issues that he thinks need to be addressed in chapter 10, Research Desiderata, which includes "a new set of core samples" to be taken. He is not as certain as you are. No wonder you are ignoring that point.

Lol. Says the least nuanced, most dogmatic poster on any of the Holocaust discussion forums. Says the guy whose side insists there can there can no debate or discussion on the matter at all (i.e., 100% certainty).

It is 100% certain that 100% of the witnesses who say they saw a mass gassing are described as a liar by revisionists, leaving 0% of witnesses who were at the places the gas chambers were located, who revisionists say told a truthful narrative of events.

I am also 100% certain revisionists are wrong, since they cannot produce an agreed, evidenced, chronological narrative.

Germar's modesty and caution at the end are indicative of his scientific approach.

If you disagree with me on the specific point I made, let's see your evidence that the walls of the UNDERGROUND CELLARS were DRY as a bone.

I agree with Rudolf, more testing and experimentation is needed to establish the levels and why those levels are found. Neither of us are chemists, so why do you think we can knowledgeably argue about chemistry?

That does not change that the evidence and logic are still in favour of the historians, and not the revisionists, which is why Rudolf was rejected by the scientific community. He is arguing the equivalent of his scientific study of the Titanic wreck finds no reason why it could have been sunk by an iceberg, therefore that did not happen and all the surviving witnesses are liars.

[Nessie]

....

It's not like where trying to explain why the gas chamber walls had 800 ppm and the fumigation chambers has 1200 ppm. We're trying to explain why the gas chamber walls have zero and the most likely explanation is that Zyklon was not used much if at all in those rooms.

Based on the evidence pertaining to the use of the building and the Leichenkeller, the most likely explanation is that Zyklon B did not leave as much residue as expected, and we are not entirely sure why that is. It would appear that short exposures in a room full of people, with a ventilation system to draw out gas and then repeated washing and painting, means little to no residue. That revisionists find that too surprising a result to accept, is not evidence to prove no mass gassings.

[curioussoul]

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

Addressed by Rudolf:

Furthermore, the opinion is occasionally expressed that the homicidal gas chamber was hosed down with water after every gassing. This assertion forgets that it would have taken many hours before the “gas chamber” could have been cleared of bodies (they had to be cremated, which is time-consuming and lasts many days, after all), that the hydrogen cyanide does not merely sit on the surface of the wall, but rather, due to its extremely high diffusion capacity, penetrates deeply into the wall within a few hours, and that a water hose would be of no assistance in this regard, quite apart from the fact that such an action would have had the effect of causing the consequently wet walls to adsorb even more hydrogen cyanide during the next hypothetical gassing. In addition, the samples taken from the ceiling, which was certainly not hosed down, likewise show no reproducible cyanide concentrations. (The Chemistry of Auschwitz, 360)

What evidence does Rudolf have that it binds to water quickly?

Science, I don't know. Maybe you should just read Rudolf's study instead of assuming he's lying about everything?

"Chart 3 shows the maximum solubility of HCN in water at various temperatures with a hydrogen-cyanide content of 1 mol% in air, which corresponds to approximately 13 g hydrogen cyanide per m3 air (Landolt/Börnstein 1962, pp. 1-158). It increases, as with any gas, with decreasing temperature and lies between 0.065 mol per liter at 30°C and 0.2 mol per liter at 0°C. These high concentrations demonstrate the extreme solubility of hydrogen cyanide in water."

As already noted, the ceiling wouldn't have been hosed from feces and bodily fluids, yet shows no sign of Prussian Blue. So that argument goes out the window. You're just grasping at straws, here.

And as I explained in an earlier post, fumigations of newly renovated churches resulted in Prussian Blue discolorations from mere singular fumigations. Clearly, continued high-concentration exposure isn't necessary for Prussian Blue to form. Even if we for the sake of argument accept that there would have been some mitigating circumstances, the fact these chambers were below ground in a damp environment yet show no signs whatsoever of Prussian Blue is extremely problematic for the orthodox thesis. Your squirming shows this.

[curioussoul]

....

It's not like where trying to explain why the gas chamber walls had 800 ppm and the fumigation chambers has 1200 ppm. We're trying to explain why the gas chamber walls have zero and the most likely explanation is that Zyklon was not used much if at all in those rooms.

Based on the evidence pertaining to the use of the building and the Leichenkeller the most likely explanation is that Zyklon B did not leave as much residue as expected, and we are not entirely sure why that is.

Your personal inability to accept a scenario wherein the room was not used as a homicidal gas chamber and therefore was not exposed to significant levels of HCN does nothing to help the orthodox case.

[Nessie]

....

It's not like where trying to explain why the gas chamber walls had 800 ppm and the fumigation chambers has 1200 ppm. We're trying to explain why the gas chamber walls have zero and the most likely explanation is that Zyklon was not used much if at all in those rooms.

Based on the evidence pertaining to the use of the building and the Leichenkeller the most likely explanation is that Zyklon B did not leave as much residue as expected, and we are not entirely sure why that is.

Your personal inability to accept a scenario wherein the room was not used as a homicidal gas chamber and therefore was not exposed to significant levels of HCN does nothing to help the orthodox case.

Revisionists do not have such a scenario. They have zero witnesses or other evidence from the Kremas, to support any of their suggested scenarios, of the Leuchenkeller being used for mass showering, delousing, corpse storage or bomb shelter. Rudolf claims no mass gassings (but he may be wrong) and cannot even come up with a scenario as to what did happen!

[Archie]

....

It's not like where trying to explain why the gas chamber walls had 800 ppm and the fumigation chambers has 1200 ppm. We're trying to explain why the gas chamber walls have zero and the most likely explanation is that Zyklon was not used much if at all in those rooms.

Based on the evidence pertaining to the use of the building and the Leichenkeller, the most likely explanation is that Zyklon B did not leave as much residue as expected, and we are not entirely sure why that is. It would appear that short exposures in a room full of people, with a ventilation system to draw out gas and then repeated washing and painting, means little to no residue. That revisionists find that too surprising a result to accept, is not evidence to prove no mass gassings.

You're "not entirely sure" because the data conflict with your beliefs and you have no way of explaining the data. Instead of revising your beliefs, you ASSUME there must be some unknown triple bank shot explanation. The real explanation is the most obvious one. There are virtually zero cyanide compounds in the walls because the holocaust is a fraud.

-Nobody was claiming these rooms had minimal exposure to HCN until after Leuchter. This is nothing but a post hoc explanation. There would have been dozens, even hundreds of gassings in these rooms. It's also false that the ventilation was superfast. It likely would have taken hours to fully ventilate the room.
-Very few testimonies mention washing the walls and most of them are extremely late. The one that comes to mind if Josef Sackar's testimony (story) in We Wept Without Tears which was published in the 1990s. Washing the walls would add moisture which is not consistent with the earlier BS claim that was made that the walls were too dry for Prussian blue to form.
-Painting the walls? Since when is this part of the story? And where did this paint go? Let me guess? The Nazis painted the walls to prevent Prussian blue from forming and then stripped the paint off as part of the cover up?

[Nessie]

....

It's not like where trying to explain why the gas chamber walls had 800 ppm and the fumigation chambers has 1200 ppm. We're trying to explain why the gas chamber walls have zero and the most likely explanation is that Zyklon was not used much if at all in those rooms.

Based on the evidence pertaining to the use of the building and the Leichenkeller, the most likely explanation is that Zyklon B did not leave as much residue as expected, and we are not entirely sure why that is. It would appear that short exposures in a room full of people, with a ventilation system to draw out gas and then repeated washing and painting, means little to no residue. That revisionists find that too surprising a result to accept, is not evidence to prove no mass gassings.

You're "not entirely sure" because the data conflict with your beliefs and you have no way of explaining the data.

I have said what I think explains the data. The length of exposure, the ventilation system and washing and painting the walls.

Instead of revising your beliefs, you ASSUME there must be some unknown triple bank shot explanation. The real explanation is the most obvious one. There are virtually zero cyanide compounds in the walls because the holocaust is a fraud.

The best explanation is the evidenced one. It is evidenced that mass gassings took place. It is not evidenced that any of the revisionist theoreticals of showering, delousing, corpse storage or bomb shelter took place. Evidentially, revisionism fails.

-Nobody was claiming these rooms had minimal exposure to HCN until after Leuchter. This is nothing but a post hoc explanation. There would have been dozens, even hundreds of gassings in these rooms. It's also false that the ventilation was superfast. It likely would have taken hours to fully ventilate the room.
-Very few testimonies mention washing the walls and most of them are extremely late. The one that comes to mind if Josef Sackar's testimony (story) in We Wept Without Tears which was published in the 1990s. Washing the walls would add moisture which is not consistent with the earlier BS claim that was made that the walls were too dry for Prussian blue to form.
-Painting the walls? Since when is this part of the story? And where did this paint go? Let me guess? The Nazis painted the walls to prevent Prussian blue from forming and then stripped the paint off as part of the cover up?

Your argument is the logically flawed argument from incredulity, that because you cannot work out how it was possible, does not therefore mean it was not possible. The data from Rudolf and reasoning you provide is compelling. The conclusion that mass gassings left little residue is counterintuitive. But many events end up with results that are not as expected. It is proven that gassings took place. Revisionists cannot prove any other event took place. Therefore, for reasons we cannot explain to your satisfaction, the gassings left far less traces of Zyklon B than expected. That does not logically prove no gassings.

Rudolf also admits that scientifically, his findings do not prove no gassings. He admits his conclusion may be wrong and more testing and experimentation is needed. As a scientist, he has put forward a theory, with some scientific evidence. He knows that the scientific process to reach a more definitive conclusion, needs more work. His is just the first step and for revisionists to argue he has completed the journey and reached a proof, is scientifically ignorant.

In terms of evidence, logic and science, revisionists claims of no gassings all fail.

[curioussoul]

Based on the evidence pertaining to the use of the building and the Leichenkeller the most likely explanation is that Zyklon B did not leave as much residue as expected, and we are not entirely sure why that is.

Your personal inability to accept a scenario wherein the room was not used as a homicidal gas chamber and therefore was not exposed to significant levels of HCN does nothing to help the orthodox case.

Revisionists do not have such a scenario. They have zero witnesses or other evidence from the Kremas, to support any of their suggested scenarios, of the Leuchenkeller being used for mass showering, delousing, corpse storage or bomb shelter. Rudolf claims no mass gassings (but he may be wrong) and cannot even come up with a scenario as to what did happen!

Judging from this very thread, we clearly do. You've been reduced to (literally) arguing that the physical, scientific evidence must somehow be wrong because it would contradict some of the witness statements. That's not an exaggeration, that's quite literally what your arguing.

[Nessie]

Your personal inability to accept a scenario wherein the room was not used as a homicidal gas chamber and therefore was not exposed to significant levels of HCN does nothing to help the orthodox case.

Revisionists do not have such a scenario. They have zero witnesses or other evidence from the Kremas, to support any of their suggested scenarios, of the Leuchenkeller being used for mass showering, delousing, corpse storage or bomb shelter. Rudolf claims no mass gassings (but he may be wrong) and cannot even come up with a scenario as to what did happen!

Judging from this very thread, we clearly do. You've been reduced to (literally) arguing that the physical, scientific evidence must somehow be wrong because it would contradict some of the witness statements. That's not an exaggeration, that's quite literally what your arguing.

No, you do not have an evidenced scenario of what took place within the Leichekeller. Evidentially, revisionists fail, so much so, they cannot even agree on what took place in that room. Historians have an agreed upon, evidenced narrative. Rudolf does not even try to evidence what happened.

As to the physical, scientific evidence, I leave that to Rudolf. He admits he may be wrong and lists the additional research and experimentation needed. That uncertainty, means it is reasonable of me to question whether Rudolf has incorrectly measured the levels, or he is correct with his measurements, but those levels do not mean there cannot have been mass gassings.

Logically, when the evidence contracts Rudolf's conclusion, and his conclusion is not a certainty, as he admits, then the most accurate conclusion is mass gassings do not leave the level of residue expected and we are not sure why that is.

[Hektor]

Your personal inability to accept a scenario wherein the room was not used as a homicidal gas chamber and therefore was not exposed to significant levels of HCN does nothing to help the orthodox case.

Revisionists do not have such a scenario. They have zero witnesses or other evidence from the Kremas, to support any of their suggested scenarios, of the Leuchenkeller being used for mass showering, delousing, corpse storage or bomb shelter. Rudolf claims no mass gassings (but he may be wrong) and cannot even come up with a scenario as to what did happen!

Judging from this very thread, we clearly do. You've been reduced to (literally) arguing that the physical, scientific evidence must somehow be wrong because it would contradict some of the witness statements. That's not an exaggeration, that's quite literally what your arguing.

Bear in mind that Exterminationists do not have any VALID witness testimony for their case neither. But they are fond of finding excuses why there witnesses were wrong counting on the 'sympathy with the victim' effect in their audience. Or the 'sympathy with the courageous witness that spoke the truth against those evil Nazis'. Once folks have swallowed that pill, it's difficult to get them off the hook.