The Prevarications of Markiewicz (Prussian Blue)

[Stubble]

In the clothing fumigation chambers, the prussian blue goes through the mortar and permeates through the brick being visible from the outside. The idea that this is paint is ridiculous.

[Archie]

....

Again, that he acknowledges the possibility that he could be wrong is indicative of honesty and good scientific method. This stands in sharp contrast to the dishonesty and poor method of the Holocaust side who insist that the Holocaust is self-evident and can't be debated.

Do YOU admit that YOU could be wrong?

For me to be wrong, then Green, Markiewicz and all the evidence that gas chambers were constructed inside the Kremas and gassings took place, is somehow wrong. So, it is highly unlikely I am wrong. To prove me wrong, you need evidence directly pertaining to the operation of the Kremas in 1943-4, that proves another process took place, that did not involve gassing people.

"Highly unlikely" i.e., not 100%

So you admit you could be wrong but you refuse to say so directly.

It goes without saying that people could be wrong about things. Harping on this repeatedly in lieu of making real arguments is a waste of everyone's time.

[Archie]

How many times do I need to remind you that since I am not a chemist, I cannot reliably comment on and explain his approach. Unlike you, I don't think it is credible to argue outwith my field of expertise. I can only quote his reasoning (bold my highlighting);

Given that you are totally ignorant of the topic, why have you littered this thread with dozens of inane, repetitive posts? You can't even summarize the arguments of others like Green.

[Archie]

....

Again, that he acknowledges the possibility that he could be wrong is indicative of honesty and good scientific method. This stands in sharp contrast to the dishonesty and poor method of the Holocaust side who insist that the Holocaust is self-evident and can't be debated.

Do YOU admit that YOU could be wrong?

For me to be wrong, then Green, Markiewicz and all the evidence that gas chambers were constructed inside the Kremas and gassings took place, is somehow wrong. So, it is highly unlikely I am wrong. To prove me wrong, you need evidence directly pertaining to the operation of the Kremas in 1943-4, that proves another process took place, that did not involve gassing people.

Re: Markiewicz, you have still failed to explain the main point raised in the OP.

Please note that after over 100 posts, nobody has provided any justification for Markiewicz's approach of excluding 99.9% of the total cyanide, nor has anyone explained where all that Prussian blue came from if (supposedly) not from Zyklon.

How many times do I need to remind you that since I am not a chemist, I cannot reliably comment on and explain his approach. Unlike you, I don't think it is credible to argue outwith my field of expertise. I can only quote his reasoning (bold my highlighting);

"The undertaking of chemical analysis had to be preceded by careful consideration. The revisionists focussed their attention almost exclusively on Prussian blue, which is of intense dark-blue colour and characterized by exceptional fastness. This dye occurs, especially in the form of stains, on the outer bricks of the walls of the former bath/delousing house in the area of the Birkenau camp. It is hard to imagine the chemical reactions and physicochemical processes that could have led to the formation of Prussian blue in that place. Brick, unlike other building materials, very feebly absorbs hydrogen cyanide, it sometimes does not even absorb it at all. Besides, iron occurring in it is at the third oxidation state, whereas bivalent iron ions are indispensable for the formation of the [Fe(CN)6]-4 ion, which is the precursor of Prussian blue. This ion is, besides, sensitive to the sunlight.

J. Bailer (1) writes in the collective work "Amoklauf gegen die Wirklichkeit" that the formation of Prussian blue in bricks is simply improbable; however, he takes into consideration the possibility that the walls of the delousing room were coated with this dye as a paint. It should be added that this blue coloration does not appear on the walls of all the delousing rooms.

We decided therefore to determine the cyanide ions using a method that does not induce the breakdown of the composed ferrum cyanide complex (this is the blue under discussion) and which fact we had tested before on an appropriate standard sample."

Lmao at you quoting that laughable part from Markiewicz approvingly.

"It's hard to imagine ..." No, it isn't.
Maybe it's paint - No, it isn't.

And that still wouldn't justify the decision to exclude "composed ferrum cyanide complex."

The reason they excluded Prussian blue is because they wanted to obscure the difference between the two types of chambers.

[curioussoul]

How many times do I need to remind you that since I am not a chemist, I cannot reliably comment on and explain his approach. Unlike you, I don't think it is credible to argue outwith my field of expertise. I can only quote his reasoning (bold my highlighting);

Given that you are totally ignorant of the topic, why have you littered this thread with dozens of inane, repetitive posts? You can't even summarize the arguments of others like Green.

He doesn't "think it is credible to argue outwith my field of expertise", yet he authoritatively asserted in the Babi Yar thread that the air reconnaissance photographs were "too high up to see anything".

[Archie]

One point I forgot to mention. Nessie keeps saying "Markiewicz and Green" as though these two are advancing the same arguments. In fact, they aren't really very consistent with each other. Green seems to concede in his essays that the Prussian blue in the delousing chambers is in fact from Zyklon and seems to think the Bailer paint hypothesis is unlikely.

From Green, "Leuchter, Rudolf and the Prussian Blues"

The blue-stained material is characteristic of a class of compounds called the iron blues, of which Prussian blue is a member. Although Bailer4 has suggested that the blue color may come from paint, that explanation seems unlikely. Observers of the staining at Majdanek describe it as splotchy and saturated deep within the building materials.

[Nessie]

....

Again, that he acknowledges the possibility that he could be wrong is indicative of honesty and good scientific method. This stands in sharp contrast to the dishonesty and poor method of the Holocaust side who insist that the Holocaust is self-evident and can't be debated.

Do YOU admit that YOU could be wrong?

For me to be wrong, then Green, Markiewicz and all the evidence that gas chambers were constructed inside the Kremas and gassings took place, is somehow wrong. So, it is highly unlikely I am wrong. To prove me wrong, you need evidence directly pertaining to the operation of the Kremas in 1943-4, that proves another process took place, that did not involve gassing people.

"Highly unlikely" i.e., not 100%

So you admit you could be wrong but you refuse to say so directly.

It goes without saying that people could be wrong about things. Harping on this repeatedly in lieu of making real arguments is a waste of everyone's time.

This is an important part of the debate. Occam's razor states that the simplest option is the most likely. For you to be wrong, simply requires Rudolf to be wrong. For me to be wrong requires various chemists to be wrong, PLUS all of the evidence gassings took place and dozens of witnesses (100% of the witnesses) to be lying about seeing gassings, evidence to have been faked, including the hiding by the Nazis of hundreds of thousands of Jews who they did not gas, so they would be blamed for gassing them.

[Nessie]

How many times do I need to remind you that since I am not a chemist, I cannot reliably comment on and explain his approach. Unlike you, I don't think it is credible to argue outwith my field of expertise. I can only quote his reasoning (bold my highlighting);

Given that you are totally ignorant of the topic, why have you littered this thread with dozens of inane, repetitive posts? You can't even summarize the arguments of others like Green.

My high post count is because lots of people engage with me and ask me questions.

My posts are not inane, as they critique the methodology being used to assess the chemistry evidence. When you use an inaccurate method to assess evidence, you end up with a faulty conclusion.

[Nessie]

One point I forgot to mention. Nessie keeps saying "Markiewicz and Green" as though these two are advancing the same arguments. In fact, they aren't really very consistent with each other. Green seems to concede in his essays that the Prussian blue in the delousing chambers is in fact from Zyklon and seems to think the Bailer paint hypothesis is unlikely.

From Green, "Leuchter, Rudolf and the Prussian Blues"

The blue-stained material is characteristic of a class of compounds called the iron blues, of which Prussian blue is a member. Although Bailer4 has suggested that the blue color may come from paint, that explanation seems unlikely. Observers of the staining at Majdanek describe it as splotchy and saturated deep within the building materials.

It is actually Markiewicz, Gubala and Labedz together and Green and yes they disagree. I have consistently pointed out that when theories compete, it is logical and evidentially sound, to go with the theory that is best supported by the evidence. That means Rudolf is out in the first round and more work is need to establish which of the remaining competing theories is correct.