Forensic Chemistry

[ConfusedJew]

I'm creating a dedicated thread to the forensic chemistry related to the gas chambers. There are Nazi blueprints and plenty of Nazi and Sonderkommando testimonies which I personally find extremely compelling, I don't even understand people seriously try to disregard all of that evidence, but I don't understand the chemistry so much yet so I'll focus on that in this thread.

The strongest chemical arguments that I have seen are listed below. Please let me know if there are others that I have missed. I want to keep this as concise as possible so I'd like to summarize the strongest arguments upfront.

1. Zyklon B is not suitable for mass killing. It releases cyanide too slowly to kill people quickly in large numbers.

2. The gas chambers were not airtight/sealed properly which would be necessary in order to kill people.

3. Leuchter went to Auschwitz and scraped brick and mortar samples from the site, sent them to a lab, and argued that low amounts of cyanide residue was evidence that genocidal gassings did not take place.

4. Delousing chambers have blue staining (Prussian blue), but homicidal gas chambers do not—this supposedly proves they were never exposed to Zyklon B.

5. Ventilation systems in the gas chambers were inadequate to clear toxic gas safely, so they must not have been used.

6. Zyklon B releases cyanide too slowly to kill people quickly in large numbers.

7. Zyklon B was supposedly dropped into the gas chambers through openings in the roof. David Irving and Germar Rudolf have claimed that there is no physical evidence of these holes in the ruins of the gas chambers, so the gas could not have been delivered.

8. Cyanide poisoning causes a bright red discoloration of the skin due to oxygen saturation, but survivors described corpses as blue or gray.

9. If HCN was used extensively, there should be heavy corrosion or chemical burns in the gas chambers’ remnants.

10. Hydrogen cyanide (Zyklon B) is flammable. Using it in enclosed spaces (gas chambers) with crematoria nearby would pose an explosion risk, making its use implausible.

[HansHill]

Good thread - I have inserted some comments below to get started.

I'm creating a dedicated thread to the forensic chemistry related to the gas chambers. There are Nazi blueprints and plenty of Nazi and Sonderkommando testimonies which I personally find extremely compelling, I don't even understand people seriously try to disregard all of that evidence, but I don't understand the chemistry so much yet so I'll focus on that in this thread.

The strongest chemical arguments that I have seen are listed below. Please let me know if there are others that I have missed. I want to keep this as concise as possible so I'd like to summarize the strongest arguments upfront.

1. Zyklon B is not suitable for mass killing. It releases cyanide too slowly to kill people quickly in large numbers.

One key aspect missing here is time. The execution times cited range from instantaneous to 20 minutes, averaging somewhere between 5-10 minutes. So you should add to this argument "...in large numbers at the rate claimed"

2. The gas chambers were not airtight/sealed properly which would be necessary in order to kill people.

I assume you are referring here to Krema I, in which case I would add specifically that the door was a swinging door. However this is not a chemical argument.

3. Leuchter went to Auschwitz and scraped brick and mortar samples from the site, sent them to a lab, and argued that low amounts of cyanide residue was evidence that genocidal gassings did not take place.

4. Delousing chambers have blue staining (Prussian blue), but homicidal gas chambers do not—this supposedly proves they were never exposed to Zyklon B.

Delousing chambers specifically with exposed brickwork. The key point here is that the brickwork must be exposed to HcN to form PB. There are some instances of comparable chambers NOT exhibiting the blue staining, eg execution chambers in USA which are made of some sort of aluminium, or the degesch fumigation chambers which were professionally built.

5. Ventilation systems in the gas chambers were inadequate to clear toxic gas safely, so they must not have been used.

Inadequate both in terms of their operation, placement, and purpose.

6. Zyklon B releases cyanide too slowly to kill people quickly in large numbers.

See 1 above

7. Zyklon B was supposedly dropped into the gas chambers through openings in the roof. David Irving and Germar Rudolf have claimed that there is no physical evidence of these holes in the ruins of the gas chambers, so the gas could not have been delivered.

This is only the case for Kremas II and III. For Krema I, the extant holes are acknowledged as replicas. The delivery mechanism for Krema IV and V was allegedly through openings in the walls, not ceiling.

8. Cyanide poisoning causes a bright red discoloration of the skin due to oxygen saturation, but survivors described corpses as blue or gray.

9. If HCN was used extensively, there should be heavy corrosion or chemical burns in the gas chambers’ remnants.

Unsure what is meant here - can you clarify what chemical burns refers to?

10. Hydrogen cyanide (Zyklon B) is flammable. Using it in enclosed spaces (gas chambers) with crematoria nearby would pose an explosion risk, making its use implausible.

This was erroneously claimed by Leucther, but has been clarified by Rudolf - the concentrations we are talking about for a theoretical human gassing, poses little to no explosion risk.

[ConfusedJew]

OK so I will consolidate the arguments and then if there are no additional modifications or additions, I will start to address them. I took out #10 as it was allegedly addressed by Rudolf.

1. Zyklon B is not suitable for mass killing. It releases cyanide too slowly to kill people quickly in large numbers at the rate claimed (less than 20 minutes but about 5-10 minutes on average).

2. The gas chambers were not airtight/sealed properly which would be necessary in order to kill people. The door in Krema I was a swinging door.

3. Leuchter went to Auschwitz and scraped brick and mortar samples from the site, sent them to a lab, and argued that low amounts of cyanide residue was evidence that genocidal gassings did not take place.

4. Delousing chambers have blue staining (Prussian blue), but homicidal gas chambers do not—this supposedly proves they were never exposed to Zyklon B.

5. Brickwork must be exposed to HcN to form PB. There are some instances of comparable chambers NOT exhibiting the blue staining, eg execution chambers in USA which are made of some sort of aluminium, or the degesch fumigation chambers which were professionally built.

6. Ventilation systems in the gas chambers were inadequate to clear toxic gas safely, so they must not have been used or were inadequate in terms of operation, placement, and purpose.

7. Zyklon B was supposedly dropped into the gas chambers through openings in the roof. David Irving and Germar Rudolf have claimed that there is no physical evidence of these holes in the ruins of the gas chambers, so the gas could not have been delivered in Krema II and III. The delivery mechanism for IV and V were allegedly through openings in the walls.

8. Cyanide poisoning causes a bright red discoloration of the skin due to oxygen saturation, but survivors described corpses as blue or gray.

9. If HCN was used extensively, there should be heavy corrosion or chemical burns in the gas chambers’ remnants (visible damage or alteration to building materials).

[HansHill]

I'm fine with this list CJ but just to note that some of the arguments are not chemical in nature (swinging door), i'm still unsure about number 9, and the most obvious point is that, while I appreciate your desire for a concise list, by necessity each point will need layers of extrapolation - for example point 1 alone will by necessity need to expand to account for the arguments of (among other things) quantities used, concentrations achieved, condensation and its effect on the pellets, oxygen depletion amongst the victims.

Also just to note, under point 3 - Leuchter's experiments were repeated by others, including Rudolf. This point in turn will be extrapolated into discussions of moisture, pH, exposure times and concentrations of exposure.

All of this is to say, while we can strive for a concise "list", every point will need to be extrapolated to a large degree. Also this was just my initial feedback - it's likely that some other contributors here will address something I have missed or forgotten.

[ConfusedJew]

That's fine. I just want a well organized starting point so that people don't keep moving the goal posts. Some of that is acceptable but you need to start with a base level of understanding.

[ConfusedJew]

1. Zyklon B is not suitable for mass killing. It releases cyanide too slowly to kill people quickly in large numbers at the rate claimed (less than 20 minutes but about 5-10 minutes on average).

Hydrogen cyanide gas disrupts cellular respiration by binding to cytochrome c oxidase in mitochondria. This prevents cells from using oxygen, leading to rapid death, especially in high concentrations. In confined, sealed spaces (like the gas chambers at Auschwitz), death occurred in 5 to 15 minutes. The timing depended on factors like the size and ventilation of the chamber, number of victims (more people means more oxygen consumption), amount of Zyklon B used, and the temperature (affects how fast HCN is released).

Both Nazi SS officers and Sonderkommando survivors consistently reported that victims lost consciousness within minutes, with death occurring shortly after.

The Zyklon B was released gas quickly enough in warm, enclosed chambers. Zyklon B was chosen specifically because it was effective at killing large numbers of people in a short time. Over time, the Nazis refined the process for "efficiency", including heating the chambers or pre-warming the Zyklon to accelerate gas release.

2. The gas chambers were not airtight/sealed properly which would be necessary in order to kill people. The door in Krema I was a swinging door.

Krema I (in Auschwitz I) was the first stationary gas chamber used at Auschwitz and was later converted into a morgue at which point, many mass killings shifted to Birkenau (Auschwitz II), where Kremas II–V were purpose-built for mass extermination. Krema I’s original gas chamber was modified and not preserved exactly as it was during its use as a killing facility, which causes confusion today.

Krema I had a swinging wooden door, which would not be ideal for pressure sealing but it was retrofitted with latches and possibly rubber seals to improve gas retention. The gas chamber only needed to retain gas for 10–20 minutes which did not require hermetic sealing like in modern biohazard labs. Even though it did not use an airtight seal, the swinging door was adequate to do the job.

Separately, Zyklon B introduction vents are still visible in ruins of Krema II and III.

3. Leuchter went to Auschwitz and scraped brick and mortar samples from the site, sent them to a lab, and argued that low amounts of cyanide residue was evidence that genocidal gassings did not take place.

Leuchter expected hydrogen cyanide (HCN) to permanently bind to walls and leave large residues but HCN reacts differently to different building materials. It readily bonds with iron-based compounds in plaster and brick to form Prussian blue (ferric ferrocyanide).

The human gas chambers only used HCN for ~20 minutes per cycle while delousing chambers exposed walls to much higher concentrations for hours or days, allowing much more Prussian blue to form. The reduced level of cyanide in the gas chambers is in part expected due to much lower levels of exposure in a killing chamber versus a delousing chamber.

Chemist Dr. James Roth, whose lab tested the samples, later testified that you “You can't take samples from walls exposed to the elements for 40+ years and expect accurate cyanide detection." More rigorous studies—like those by Prof. Jan Markiewicz and the Auschwitz Museum (1994)—did detect cyanide residues in the gas chamber walls, supporting historical testimony.

Sources like "Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers" by Jean-Claude Pressac and expert reports from the Irving v. Lipstadt trial (2000) have gone into much deeper technical detail on how it all worked. We can go also down that path if you feel it is necessary. But I'll wait on that.

4. Delousing chambers have blue staining (Prussian blue), but homicidal gas chambers do not—this supposedly proves they were never exposed to Zyklon B.

Similar to question above. Cyanide residues were found in the walls of the homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz and Birkenau. The length of exposure and conditions were not right for full staining, but there were residues.

5. Brickwork must be exposed to HcN to form PB. There are some instances of comparable chambers NOT exhibiting the blue staining, eg execution chambers in USA which are made of some sort of aluminium, or the degesch fumigation chambers which were professionally built.

This seems correct to me but maybe I am missing your point. HCN exposure alone isn’t enough to produce visible Prussian blue staining. Prussian blue only forms if (1) the walls contain iron compounds (e.g., iron oxides in the mortar, plaster, or brick), (2) the environment is alkaline, moist, and stable over time, and (3) the HCN is present in high concentration for extended periods.

6. Ventilation systems in the gas chambers were inadequate to clear toxic gas safely, so they must not have been used or were inadequate in terms of operation, placement, and purpose.

I disagree with the accuracy of this.

Technical details from Auschwitz blueprints among other sources show that the ventilation used forced-air systems that extracted poisoned air after each gassing. Zyklon B introduction shafts were in the roof; after gassing (~10–20 minutes), fans were activated to remove hydrogen cyanide gas. In the final step, airflow was directed through ventilation ducts, with motors and filters to hasten gas dispersal.

SS engineer Karl Bischoff’s correspondence provides very clear details on the ventilation and referred to Auschwitz as an extermination camp on 2 September 1942.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/do ... -auschwitz

The Sonderkommando testimony corresponds to the SS correspondence as well. I expect this particular issue will require a further debate so I'll leave that be for now.

7. Zyklon B was supposedly dropped into the gas chambers through openings in the roof. David Irving and Germar Rudolf have claimed that there is no physical evidence of these holes in the ruins of the gas chambers, so the gas could not have been delivered in Krema II and III. The delivery mechanism for IV and V were allegedly through openings in the walls.

Historical documents, blueprints, and eyewitness testimony all describe the method of Zyklon B introduction Kremas II and III. Zyklon B pellets were poured in through four evenly spaced holes in the reinforced concrete roof of the underground gas chamber (Leichenkeller 1).

The roof of Leichenkeller 1 (gas chamber) at Krema II is now collapsed and in ruins. It's a chaotic field of broken concrete slabs—not an intact roof where original features are easily identifiable. Some of the roof is buried, cracked, or destroyed by the Nazis in 1945 when they tried to cover up the crime by dynamiting the structures. Despite this, several forensic investigators and researchers—including Prof. Robert Jan van Pelt—have identified at least one likely original hole in the collapsed roof of Krema II.

The logic here is fallacious. The Nazis destroyed evidence which doesn't change what happened. It just makes it harder to detect. Absence of evidence is not proof of absence. But supposedly some evidence of a hole was uncovered anyway.

8. Cyanide poisoning causes a bright red discoloration of the skin due to oxygen saturation, but survivors described corpses as blue or gray.

This is flawed logic and similar to the Prussian Blue argument. Even though cyanide sometimes turns victims bright red, it only does that under specific conditions. It does not always turn victims bright red.

Victims in the Auschwitz gas chambers—many of whom were starved, sick, dehydrated, and exposed to multiple causes of death—would not all show textbook symptoms. Survivor descriptions of blue or gray corpses are fully consistent with cyanide poisoning, hypoxia, physical crowding/asphyxiation, and postmortem changes. Even when bodies do turn red, the color fades quickly as decomposition starts and will turn gray/pale/blue.

9. If HCN was used extensively, there should be heavy corrosion or chemical burns in the gas chambers’ remnants (visible damage or alteration to building materials).

This doesn't seem like a big objection but HCN is not a strong acid or base and doesn’t corrode concrete, brick, or mortar under normal conditions. It’s a volatile organic compound (VOC) that dissipates quickly unless chemically bound.

[Wetzelrad]

3. Leuchter went to Auschwitz and scraped brick and mortar samples from the site, sent them to a lab, and argued that low amounts of cyanide residue was evidence that genocidal gassings did not take place.

Several other parties have repeated the work of taking samples and having them tested. Rudolf, Mattogno, Ball, and the Markiewicz team twice. The results generally agree with each other except where the method of testing differs.

The specific argument I find compelling is that the low amounts of cyanide found in the homicidal gas chambers are not different from the amounts found in non-homicidal rooms including an undressing room, a wash room, a bathhouse, some barracks, and the reconstructed foundations of Crema IV and V.

It has alternatively been argued that the amounts found are so low as to be the same as zero, perhaps because they are too close to the detection limit or because they are false positives.

4. Delousing chambers have blue staining (Prussian blue), but homicidal gas chambers do not—this supposedly proves they were never exposed to Zyklon B.

This is the critical argument. There have been attempts to argue against this by people like Pressac and Green, but Rudolf has given highly technical reasons for why the homicidal gas chambers were well-suited to develop these blue stains. There have also been some clumsy attempts to handwave this problem away, like by Bailer and Markiewicz, but I suppose these can be ignored.

It's worth knowing that the situation is different at Majdanek. There, the museum authorities recognize and admit that blue stains indicate Zyklon usage, and they go further to say that the lack of blue stains proves Zyklon was not used in two of the alleged gas chambers. Therefore revisionists today are merely applying the same framework used by the Majdanek museum at Majdanek to Auschwitz.

5. Ventilation systems in the gas chambers were inadequate to clear toxic gas safely, so they must not have been used.

The issue is not safety insomuch as a question of whether it was a reasonable design and whether or not it could be done in the time described by witnesses.

Also, in a properly designed chamber, the air system would be used to circulate air during operation so that it diffuses evenly and leaves no dead spots.

graphic produced by Degesch in internal communications.jpg (178.88 KiB) Viewed 458 times

I am interested in this thread, but since none of us are chemists and since it's obvious you haven't read Rudolf's book, the arguments you seek to make are not precisely responsive to the arguments he has made. For the same reason, I highly doubt you will be able to arrive at technical answers to these questions, rather than wordy ones.

[HansHill]

Chemist Dr. James Roth, whose lab tested the samples, later testified that you “You can't take samples from walls exposed to the elements for 40+ years and expect accurate cyanide detection." More rigorous studies—like those by Prof. Jan Markiewicz and the Auschwitz Museum (1994)—did detect cyanide residues in the gas chamber walls, supporting historical testimony.

There is a lot to cover here and as i predicted, each argument has already snowballed into micro-extrapolations. Which is good. However, the part above is an immediate contradiction and this needs to be addressed immediately.

You are contradicting yourself if you are arguing that retroactive analyses cannot be trusted as reliable, but the Markiewicz analysis was reliable because.... well just because.

So which is it? Is chemical analysis reliable or not? If not, this entire thread is redundant.

[ConfusedJew]

Chemist Dr. James Roth, whose lab tested the samples, later testified that you “You can't take samples from walls exposed to the elements for 40+ years and expect accurate cyanide detection." More rigorous studies—like those by Prof. Jan Markiewicz and the Auschwitz Museum (1994)—did detect cyanide residues in the gas chamber walls, supporting historical testimony.

There is a lot to cover here and as i predicted, each argument has already snowballed into micro-extrapolations. Which is good. However, the part above is an immediate contradiction and this needs to be addressed immediately.

You are contradicting yourself if you are arguing that retroactive analyses cannot be trusted as reliable, but the Markiewicz analysis was reliable because.... well just because.

So which is it? Is chemical analysis reliable or not? If not, this entire thread is redundant.

It's not a contradiction. Cyanide residues—especially those from hydrogen cyanide (HCN) gas—can degrade, diminish, or become less detectable over time, especially when exposed to weathering, washing, oxidation, or physical disturbance. This is a well-established fact in both forensic science and environmental chemistry.

After 40+ years, measurements will be less accurate, but you can most definitely draw inferences about what happened 40 years prior with less precision.

[Stubble]

CJ, none of that explains why when you exclude iron blue, some of the control samples exceed residue in the supposed homicidal gas chambers.

/shrug

[HansHill]

It's not a contradiction. Cyanide residues—especially those from hydrogen cyanide (HCN) gas—can degrade, diminish, or become less detectable over time, especially when exposed to weathering, washing, oxidation, or physical disturbance. This is a well-established fact in both forensic science and environmental chemistry.

After 40+ years, measurements will be less accurate, but you can most definitely draw inferences about what happened 40 years prior with less precision.

Well then we are at an impasse - because no matter what I say, you will roll Schroedinger's Dice and my analysis will be faulty, and yours won't.

It's imperative we agree that chemical analysis is reliable, or else this is redundant.

The correct answer of course, is that the analysis is reliable. The very reason we focus on PB is specifically because it is indeed demonstrably long term stable. See below:



You would have to argue that these deposits are somehow.... not reliably present. This despite their absolutely obvious presence (!)

Another example:



These cyanide deposits are demonstrably long term stable. Johannes Meusen wrote his PhD thesis on the long term stability of HcN residues at City Gas plants, where across 1,000s of locations in Europe and USA, since the industrial revolution, these HcN deposits can be reliably observed.

That's why it is imperative before going anywhere else, that we agree - the science is telling us what the science is telling us. No inferences, no ifs and buts, no Schroedingers Dice Roll where you will always choose to win. In fact, that Markiewicz et al chose to only study the non-bound non-long term stable residues, and focus entirely on free associated cyanide compounds that are actually unreliable, should tell you all you need to know before going anywhere else.

[ConfusedJew]

The specific argument I find compelling is that the low amounts of cyanide found in the homicidal gas chambers are not different from the amounts found in non-homicidal rooms including an undressing room, a wash room, a bathhouse, some barracks, and the reconstructed foundations of Crema IV and V.

Regarding the undressing rooms, they were adjacent to the gas chambers. Many of these structures were reconstructed and there’s often contamination from weathering, renovation, or debris.

This is the critical argument. There have been attempts to argue against this by people like Pressac and Green, but Rudolf has given highly technical reasons for why the homicidal gas chambers were well-suited to develop these blue stains. There have also been some clumsy attempts to handwave this problem away, like by Bailer and Markiewicz, but I suppose these can be ignored.

Rudolf argued that the conditions in the homicidal gas chambers were sufficient to form significant amounts of Prussian blue (iron cyanide compounds) — yet traces are minimal. His main arguments are:
1. Sufficient iron content in the chamber walls to form Prussian blue.
2. Adequate humidity, pH, and exposure time during repeated gassings.
3. Supposed chemical similarity between homicidal and delousing chambers.

This is where he was off point:

1. Iron content is not the only factor. It must be in the right chemical form (ferric iron, Fe³⁺) and accessible at the surface.
The walls were plastered or lime-coated (e.g., with calcium hydroxide), which chemically inhibits Prussian blue formation by reacting with HCN before it reaches the iron and seals the wall surface, preventing hydrogen cyanide from penetrating. Even if some iron was present, the chemical environment in homicidal chambers did not promote stable iron-cyanide bonding over short exposures.

2. Formation of Prussian blue requires sustained or repeated exposure. While Zyklon B was used in the delousing chambers for hours, often repeated daily, homicidal gas chambers only used Zykon B for 15-30 minutes and ventilated quickly with fewer cycles.

The delousing chambers were sealed for long periods, allowing high humidity and slow diffusion — ideal for reactions while the homicidal gas chambers were mechanically ventilated to remove gas and bodies quickly. This reduced humidity and time for chemical reactions.

Regarding pH, alkaline plaster reacts with HCN and converts it to non-cyanide compounds before it can form Prussian blue.
Iron must remain in the oxidized Fe³⁺ form, but lime-based coatings shift conditions away from that.

3. While the same chemical was used in both chambers, the chambers themselves were different with their own function, exposure pattern, construction materials, and ventilation are different — and those differences critically affect chemical outcomes.

You can bring up specific arguments if you want to go into more detail, but you'll have to do that.

It's worth knowing that the situation is different at Majdanek. There, the museum authorities recognize and admit that blue stains indicate Zyklon usage, and they go further to say that the lack of blue stains proves Zyklon was not used in two of the alleged gas chambers. Therefore revisionists today are merely applying the same framework used by the Majdanek museum at Majdanek to Auschwitz.

The gas chambers at Majdanek had different construction materials, including uncoated concrete and brick, and in some cases were less altered over time. These conditions made chemical reactions more likely to leave blue residue — particularly in delousing chambers, where exposure was extensive.

Regarding the two "questioned" gas chambers, the Nazis may have used with carbon monoxide or other gassing methods. The museum’s recognition that lack of blue staining raises questions is context-sensitive — not a blanket rule that applies elsewhere.

Also, in a properly designed chamber, the air system would be used to circulate air during operation so that it diffuses evenly and leaves no dead spots.

You are technically right, but Nazi homicidal gas chambers were makeshift killing facilities, not precision instruments. So while theoretical gas chamber design is valid, it doesn’t match the actual historical implementation at Auschwitz or other camps.

Speed & secrecy were the main priorities — not engineering sophistication and precise diffusion wasn't necessary to get the job done. The Nazis were confident that overdosing with Zyklon B would make up for any inefficiencies. Additionally, installing fans to circulate cyanide gas during operation would be dangerous for the SS staff, requiring far more complex sealing and filtration systems.


graphic produced by Degesch in internal communications.jpg

I am interested in this thread, but since none of us are chemists and since it's obvious you haven't read Rudolf's book, the arguments you seek to make are not precisely responsive to the arguments he has made. For the same reason, I highly doubt you will be able to arrive at technical answers to these questions, rather than wordy ones.

You are deferring to somebody else's chemical arguments which have already been disproven in court by expert chemists. If you want to say that I am not qualified to figure out the technical details, then you aren't either and we have to defer to the actual experts who have already testified that Rudolf was wrong.

[ConfusedJew]

CJ, none of that explains why when you exclude iron blue, some of the control samples exceed residue in the supposed homicidal gas chambers.

/shrug

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Please try to make your argument more clearly.

[ConfusedJew]

Well then we are at an impasse - because no matter what I say, you will roll Schroedinger's Dice and my analysis will be faulty, and yours won't.

It's imperative we agree that chemical analysis is reliable, or else this is redundant.

The correct answer of course, is that the analysis is reliable.

That's why it is imperative before going anywhere else, that we agree - the science is telling us what the science is telling us. No inferences, no ifs and buts, no Schroedingers Dice Roll where you will always choose to win. In fact, that Markiewicz et al chose to only study the non-bound non-long term stable residues, and focus entirely on free associated cyanide compounds that are actually unreliable, should tell you all you need to know before going anywhere else.

There's always going to be some uncertainty in scientific analysis. No study or measurement will ever be completely reliable.

You are referencing somebody else's argument without explaining it to me in self evident terms so I need you to be more clear and thorough in your arguments. I'm not dismissing any study as wholly reliable or unreliable, that was merely a quote from one of the experts in the Irving litigation. It is not important and we pass on that.

Please clarify your argument and we can go from there.

I think you are getting hung up on the Prussian Blue though. It is a red herring argument. If you recreated extermination gas chambers from scratch in the same conditions that the Nazis created, you would not expect to find Prussian Blue. The absence isn't relevant.

[Stubble]

CJ, none of that explains why when you exclude iron blue, some of the control samples exceed residue in the supposed homicidal gas chambers.

/shrug

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Please try to make your argument more clearly.

I'm making the very simple argument that I personally doubt the accuracy of the methods used to test for cyanids that screen out iron blue, because some of the control samples exceed the obvious background levels detected in the tests, I further posit that if my in ground pool were sampled it would also exceed the levels found using this method in the supposed homicidal gas chambers.

It is a simple argument, I grant that, but, I don't personally feel the argument need be complex for consideration.

When control samples show higher levels than the supposed homicidal gas chambers it should be patently obvious you are screening background levels.