The Prevarications of Markiewicz (Prussian Blue)

[Archie]

That McNamara paper has no original data on humans. It's making estimates based on animal studies. However, it does reference a few interesting prior studies.

The 1931 study where Barcroft gassed himself and a dog at the same time. (That is a true man of science!) He was exposed to about 500+ ppm for a minute and a half. The dog went unconscious by 1:15. At 1:30 the man left the chamber, put on a respirator and went back in to take out the dog. The dog appeared to be dead, but it in fact recovered.

The part about the dog recovering actually brings up a good point that is not often made. In the Holocaust stories, we are of course told of the infamous "peephole" where the Nazis watched (with glee) to make sure everyone had died. In reality, visual inspection isn't reliable at all with HCN gassings because people lose consciousness before death. In American gas chambers, they had to use heart rate monitors to tell when death had set in. Without that, you'd want to be conservative, i.e., you'd use extra gas to make sure you got the job done, or you'd wait extra time.

McNamara also mentions 1923 data from American Bureau of Mines reporting that workers were exposed to 250 ppm for 2 minutes and 350 ppm for 1.5 minutes and experienced no ill effects. And during the war men were exposed to 500 ppm for a minute without ill effects.

Again, McNamara has no original data on humans. He assumes that exposure for humans would be about 4x vs mice (similar to the experimental results for goats). Germar presents a version of the McNamara's table with the actual concentrations. The LD99 for 10 minutes is 1,149 mg/cu m. For an execution you want LD100 which is even higher.

I continue to maintain that the best data on this is from the American executions. They used at least 3,000 ppm. And even with this people have survived upwards of 18 minutes. That's in a tiny dedicated chamber.

[Archie]

Bombs, let's cut to the chase.

What concentration are you claiming is necessary? And what concentration do you think they used? (Note that there's no reason to assume it was the theoretical minimum).

What evidence do you have that such a concentration would be too low to form Prussian blue?

[Archie]

Well it's possible Rudolf made a mistake. His book/report has been through several editions with several mistakes corrected. I'm sure he hasn't gotten all of them. Everybody makes mistakes. Regardless, the source still says that monkeys are probably more susceptible to HCN than humans, therefore taking that number as sacrosanct is silly. And the believer side still has to explain the large amount of HCN in the delousing chamber but not in the homicidal gas chamber. They have yet to demonstrate that it is likely there would be negligible amounts of HCN in a homicidal Zyklon gas chamber.

Eh, it's not clear to me that 2x is a bad estimate for humans vs monkeys. There aren't going to be conclusive numbers on humans for obvious reasons. Bombs is free to present his own alternative calculations (he won't).

Reminder that just recently bombs was trying to say grave volume at Belzec was 70% reduced because of decomposition. No discussion of conditions, assumptions, nothing. Based solely on ChatGPT, his primary research tool. And then he's criticizing Germar for what is probably a decent assumption. And then there's Muehlenkamp who literally takes the most extreme value he can possibly find, high or low, in whichever direction he needs it to go. That's how he ends up with stuff like 15 kg of wood to cremate a body.

[bombsaway]

Bombs, let's cut to the chase.

What concentration are you claiming is necessary? And what concentration do you think they used? (Note that there's no reason to assume it was the theoretical minimum).

What evidence do you have that such a concentration would be too low to form Prussian blue?

Why should I answer such a question when you point blank refuse to answer similar questions from me? I was asking you to explain what you believed happened at Belzec, in accordance with what Kola found. I think you refused based on some notion of me being a bad actor. In this case why engage with me at all?

I'll answer anyway. Assuming gassings took 15 minutes on average, probably a minimum (according to studies Rudolf referenced) would be 500 ppm. But those studies might not be correct, so that number might be lower. I don't know because I can't verify which study is correct, and it's unclear to me how toxic HCN is in humans vs other animals.

Re what concentration they went for, maybe 1/3 over the minimum, so 500 x 1.333 = 660, again accepting the results from Rudolf's selected study.

I don't know the chemistry so I can't comment on concentrations too low to form staining. There are a lot of other factors that have to be taken into account such as exposure time, weather, rooms being cleaned with various other chemicals.

One thing that immediately jumps out to me is why (when looking at these dedicated delousing chambers) the staining is not consistent along the interior. Why only some parts of the wall? Have revisionists or anyone presented a clear mechanism for how staining happens? Without that, there's too much uncertainty around the basic question.

Reminder that just recently bombs was trying to say grave volume at Belzec was 70% reduced because of decomposition. No discussion of conditions, assumptions, nothing. Based solely on ChatGPT, his primary research tool. And then he's criticizing Germar for what is probably a decent assumption. And then there's Muehlenkamp who literally takes the most extreme value he can possibly find, high or low, in whichever direction he needs it to go. That's how he ends up with stuff like 15 kg of wood to cremate a body.

Quote me please. I don't speak in definite terms about such things, and if I did I made a mistake. That's a key difference between me and Rudolf. When he makes an assumption (totally unwarranted in the case of monkey vs humans) he treats it as being definitive.

[Archie]

Quote me please. I don't speak in definite terms about such things, and if I did I made a mistake. That's a key difference between me and Rudolf. When he makes an assumption (totally unwarranted in the case of monkey vs humans) he treats it as being definitive.

Does he?

IMMEDIATELY after the part you are quibbling with,

We always have to keep in mind that these data are not the result of experiments with human beings, which are of course out of the question, but of extrapolations.

[Archie]

One thing that immediately jumps out to me is why (when looking at these dedicated delousing chambers) the staining is not consistent along the interior. Why only some parts of the wall? Have revisionists or anyone presented a clear mechanism for how staining happens? Without that, there's too much uncertainty around the basic question.

No clear mechanism? It's a reaction with iron. It's pretty well understood.

That the blue forms in patches and spots doesn't strike me as strange. Lots of things work like that. Mold for example. It would be weirder if it perfectly coated the walls like paint. Certain parts of the wall must have been more favorable for the reaction to occur. The crucial point is that if the conditions are generally conducive (sufficient moisture, etc) then you would expect it to form somewhere. And if there's none at all that would be a bit surprising.

Now, could there have been some weird circumstance in Krema II that prevented this reaction from occurring despite heavy Zyklon usage? It is conceivable, and there have been many speculations in this regard. But it's not probable.

[bombsaway]

Quote me please. I don't speak in definite terms about such things, and if I did I made a mistake. That's a key difference between me and Rudolf. When he makes an assumption (totally unwarranted in the case of monkey vs humans) he treats it as being definitive.

Does he?

IMMEDIATELY after the part you are quibbling with,

We always have to keep in mind that these data are not the result of experiments with human beings, which are of course out of the question, but of extrapolations.

Rudolf said "Talmage and Rodgers suggested that human beings are roughly only half
as sensitive as monkeys to hydrogen-cyanide-gas exposure due to our slower
breathing"

This is a definitive statement about something these researchers did, which is not present in the text. That's what I was talking about.

When it comes to his research I'm aware and quoted Rudolf about the uncertainty he felt when it comes to the scientific arguments. But the issue comes with what revisionists, himself included, are trying to do. On the orthodox side, it's enough to say, these are reasonable assumptions, therefore gassings are possible. Revisionists, with their lack of positive evidence, have to make a much stronger case than maybe it's against the laws of science.

One thing that immediately jumps out to me is why (when looking at these dedicated delousing chambers) the staining is not consistent along the interior. Why only some parts of the wall? Have revisionists or anyone presented a clear mechanism for how staining happens? Without that, there's too much uncertainty around the basic question.

No clear mechanism? It's a reaction with iron. It's pretty well understood.

That the blue forms in patches and spots doesn't strike me as strange. Lots of things work like that. Mold for example. It would be weirder if it perfectly coated the walls like paint. Certain parts of the wall must have been more favorable for the reaction to occur. The crucial point is that if the conditions are generally conducive (sufficient moisture, etc) then you would expect it to form somewhere. And if there's none at all that would be a bit surprising.

Now, could there have been some weird circumstance in Krema II that prevented this reaction from occurring despite heavy Zyklon usage? It is conceivable, and there have been many speculations in this regard. But it's not probable.

So when I look at a picture like this



I see a huge part of the wall that has no staining. On the ceiling and directly to the right there is staining. You're saying that moisture is the key variable, but it doesn't make sense to me that moisture would only gather on one part of the wall, but not a few feet away. There has to be more to it than this.

[bombsaway]

I would also question that all fumigation chambers have staining.

What about these in Dachau?



By the way I will continue to point out Archie and other revisionists continued questioning of me, and total refusal to engage on the central question I've made viewtopic.php?t=107&start=105

There's a clear double standard at work here, and it should give anyone who is objective serious pause about the soundness of the revisionist position.

[Nazgul]

I would also question that all fumigation chambers have staining

There's a clear double standard at work here, and it should give anyone who is objective serious pause about the soundness of the revisionist position.

No one was gassed at Dachau.

[Nessie]

No, it is not feasible because successive gassings would not have occurred. I repeat, Tauber claims that the victims destroyed the electrical and ventilation systems, so successive gassings are not feasible.

Is it not feasible for electrical cables and the vents to be repaired? Tauber speaks about gassings after he said "The people going to be gassed and those in the gas chamber damaged the electrical installations, tearing the cables out and damaging the ventilation equipment." Clearly, repairs were completed.

Now, for those who assume that these were mere morgues with crematoriums attached, they see no problem in the lack of protective masks for the Sonderkommandos or in this request for a gas detector.

The construction office documents recorded the construction of gas chambers within the Kremas. That documentary evidence corroborates the witnesses, all of whom speak to the presence of gas chambers and their use for gassing people. Revisionists cannot agree on what the Kremas were used for, let alone evidence any of their claims.

[Nessie]

......

IMMEDIATELY after the part you are quibbling with,

We always have to keep in mind that these data are not the result of experiments with human beings, which are of course out of the question, but of extrapolations.

A very important point by Rudolf. He is admitting he has a theory, which is not backed by experimentation. That is why I argue no one, including Markiewicz, can definitively conclude whether the Leichenkeller was used for homicidal gassings, purely on the levels of HCN found there.

The scientific evidence is that there are lower traces inside the Leichenkeller than inside a delousing chamber. That does not therefore mean the Leichenkeller cannot have been used for repeated homicidal gassings. It means that repeated homicidal gassings inside the Leichenkeller, leave lower traces than in a delousing clothing. The reasons for that will be due to the length of exposure in terms of the overall time the space was in use and how long each exposure was, the quantity of gas used and other influencing factors such as cleaning or painting the walls and exposure to the elements. That Rudolf cannot work out to his satisfaction how that would be, is not evidence to prove no homicidal gassings took place. The inability to conduct relevant experiments, is an admitted reason as to why that is. Rudolf states;

https://archive.org/details/the-chemist ... xperiments

"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."

He admits that there is an experimental gap;

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

The reasons why Rudolf was subsequently discredited and rejected by other scientists, are; he came to a definitive conclusion that gassings did not take place without any experiments to verify the theory, and his conclusion is not only not supported by any other evidence, it is contradicted by other evidence. Logically and evidentially, Rudolf's conclusion is a fail.

[fireofice]

No one was gassed at Dachau.

He's talking about the delousing chambers where Zyklon B was used. Rudolf addresses it in his book:

To my knowledge, only the Zyklon-B-disinfestation chambers at the Buchenwald and Dachau camps (Degesch circultion chambers) exhibit no blue pigmentation, probably because first of all the walls were professionally coated with a paint impermeable to gas and water, and facilities of this type were moreover operated with heated dry air. Warm, dry walls, however, don’t tend to absorb hydrogen cyanide and to accumulate them as cyanide salts, as we shall see further below.

https://holocausthandbooks.com/wp-conte ... 2-tcoa.pdf

I am unsure where he got his information on the paint.

[bombsaway]

No one was gassed at Dachau.

He's talking about the delousing chambers where Zyklon B was used. Rudolf addresses it in his book:

To my knowledge, only the Zyklon-B-disinfestation chambers at the Buchenwald and Dachau camps (Degesch circultion chambers) exhibit no blue pigmentation, probably because first of all the walls were professionally coated with a paint impermeable to gas and water, and facilities of this type were moreover operated with heated dry air. Warm, dry walls, however, don’t tend to absorb hydrogen cyanide and to accumulate them as cyanide salts, as we shall see further below.

https://holocausthandbooks.com/wp-conte ... 2-tcoa.pdf

I am unsure where he got his information on the paint.

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.

[Archie]

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)

[fireofice]

Another thing to point out is that the argument from Rudolf isn't "Zyklon B was used, therefore there should be Prussian Blue on the walls". In fact he says that Prussian Blue is an exception:

Section 1.3 already contained a discussion of two instances of disfigurement of churches which occurred in the 1970s in Bavaria, Germany. In the many hundreds of thousands of fumigations which have been carried out since 1920, there cannot, as a rule, have been any complications. Otherwise the procedure would have been very rapidly abandoned. The cases in question were, therefore, exceptions. But what exactly was it that made these churches exceptions? (Chemistry of Auschwitz, 181-182)

Part of the argument is then that the conditions in the gas chambers (as well as most of the delousing chambers with the exceptions outlined earlier) were especially good for the formation of Prussian Blue.