Jan Sehn Institute "leaked" screening analysis results, 1990

[HansHill]

Hi, long time lurker. Would it please be possible to get an explanation for a layperson on this set of 1990 results, which Mr Rudolf informs us was leaked via an act of indiscretion in 1990?

I'm specifically interested in the values for the Disinfestation Block 3, which range from 0.404 to 0.588 (samples 9 - 11). My question here is, these results seem to be orders of magnitude different than what Leuchter, Rudolf, Ball etc all retrieved from similar locations.

How do we account for these non-ND values being seemingly so low compared with Rudolf's? Are these results using different scales? Why would these results be controversial if they were leaked as they show relatively modest readings?

Thank you in advance

[Archie]

Hi Hans. Welcome. The timeline seems to have been something like this:

1988 - Leuchter
1990 - Polish internal study
1991 - Leak to IHR
1994- Markiewicz paper (https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=122)

I believe Germar has discussed these things in multiple books and articles. In Auschwitz Lies (HH#18), he has a chapter "Polish Pseudo-Scientists." Apparently what happened is that after the Leuchter bombshell, the Poles did their own internal studies but decided not to publish them. But an insider who was sympathetic to revisionism (or perhaps just honest) sent photocopies of some of the results to a revisionist.

Here is the IHR's article from 1991 on the leak.
https://ihr.org/journal/v11p207_Staff.html

And here is part of Germar's commentary:

These results seem to suggest that samples from the alleged homicidal gas chambers contain considerable less cyanide residue than samples from delousing chambers, or even none at all. There are two things with the values given by Markiewicz, however, that struck me as odd:

1) The Polish original of this table gives cyanide as mg of potassium cyanide per 100 g of sample material instead of the internationally standard of mg of cyanide per kg of sample material.

2) The Krakow analytic results of samples taken from the delousing chamber are a factor 10,000(!) lower than results of samples taken from there by Fred Leuchter and by me. Apart from this, all values are below the detection limit of the method of analysis used by all professional analytic laboratories in the world (app. 1 mg/kg). I therefore assumed already in 1993 that the Poles committed a methodical error. (HH #18, pg 47-48)

So I think you are right that the concentrations in the leaked report are vastly lower than what Leuchter and Rudolf found. In the 1994 Markiewicz paper, the results are also really low and it is because they tested so as to exclude complex iron cyanides like Prussian blue in favor of only testing less stable cyanide compounds. From Germar's comment above ("already in 1993") it sounds like the earlier 1990 report had the same issue. (They may also done some tests with Prussian blue included, but if so this was not included in the 1994 report or in the 1991 leak).

In layman's terms, you could say Leuchter and Rudolf reported total cyanide in the wall samples whereas the testing method used by the Poles excluded over 99.9% of the the cyanide.

Why would these results be controversial if they were leaked as they show relatively modest readings?

Good question. I would guess that they didn't want to report super low values for the "gas chambers." Germar: "The only “positive” result of a sample taken from a room that according to the Museum had been a homicidal gas chamber is no. 15. No other samples contained any detectable residues." (pg. 47) But then after the leak, they probably felt compelled to publish something to put their spin on it, and that led to the 1994 report.

[Hektor]

Hi Hans. Welcome. The timeline seems to have been something like this:

1988 - Leuchter
1990 - Polish internal study
1991 - Leak to IHR
1994- Markiewicz paper (https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=122)

I believe Germar has discussed these things in multiple books and articles. In Auschwitz Lies (HH#18), he has a chapter "Polish Pseudo-Scientists." Apparently what happened is that after the Leuchter bombshell, the Poles did their own internal studies but decided not to publish them. But an insider who was sympathetic to revisionism (or perhaps just honest) sent photocopies of some of the results to a revisionist.

Here is the IHR's article from 1991 on the leak.
https://ihr.org/journal/v11p207_Staff.html

And here is part of Germar's commentary:
...

Sometimes the allegation is made that there was a forensic investigation in the 1940s. But the information on this is rather flimsy. I recall it was some analysis on a fixture they claimed was in one of the supposed 'homicidal gas chambers'... And it tested positive for HCN. Now given the interest in the subject one wonders why there isn't much more literature on this.

[Callafangers]

In the 1994 Markiewicz paper, the results are also really low and it is because they tested so as to exclude complex iron cyanides like Prussian blue in favor of only testing less stable cyanide compounds.

This is the critical point which I too often see people on both sides of the debate overlooking or not fully understanding. Prussian blue (FeCN) is the only cyanide it makes sense to test for (and start to draw any inferences or conclusions about) since, yes, the results are otherwise going to be so close to zero (0) as to be meaningless and the factors of time and weathering become far more significant. But only by taking these levels [of free-form cyanide (i.e. CN)] as their measurement -- ensuring both the control and experimental ('chamber') samples are both extremely close to zero and, thus, similar in concentration of CN -- can the establishment/exterminationists suggest that the CN levels are in any way significant or substantial. If they do the logical, rational, honest, thing (that is, measure the compound which reflects CN levels accurately over time) their claims start falling apart. Thus, they pretend FeCN is a trivial matter, that it's just as good to focus on [free-form] CN... which is absurd.

They don't stop doing this, primarily because they cannot stop doing this.

[HansHill]

Thanks All!

Ok that is very helpful Archie i wasn't aware this was covered in Auschwitz Lies, thanks for that. That passage seems to corroborate what i was seeing with the scales being orders of magnitude away from the readings of Leuchter, Rudolf etc. Incompetence seems to be the discerning factor at play here!

[Hektor]

That would also be the likely modus operandi. instead of forging from scratch. Apply changes, copy texts, leave out certain passage etc. I don't think it's feasible to forge millions of documents. But it is possible to insert a few manipulated documents into a body of a million documents. They must look as similar as possible of course and that is why you won't forge them from scratch, but use existing material.

One doesn't have to be blunt in documents neither. In fact innuendo can be more useful than stark statements. What one also can do is to cherry-pick documents and text portions that sound a bit obnoxious, especially when the audience is ignorant of the context.

Iron Blue is for sure a candidate. But in theory there may be other long-living cyanide compounds as well. Other cyanide compounds may simply be to short lived or prone to diminish due to acidity and other circumstances. And presence of short lived cyanide compounds is rather an indicator of manipulation than that they 'survived for that long'.

[HansHill]

As I understand it, the issue with detecting these non-long term stable HCN residues, is that 1) they are non-long term stable and 2) they are at or below the detection threshold.

Where miniscule non-LTS residues are found, the challenge then becomes to ascertain how they became present at that location. This could be environmental, or through other interference: For example cigarette smoke contains small amounts of HcN https://academic.oup.com/jat/article-ab ... edFrom=PDF

So it could be argued that trace amounts of HCN residues are from somebody smoking a cigarette in the vicinity of the Kremas!

All of this of course simply means that Prussian Blue is the best long term stable residue to focus on.