Forensic Chemistry

[HansHill]

CONFUSED JEW - can you please read my posts before responding. I feel you aren't reading my responses at all and it feels rude.

Here are some important questions from ChatGPT to get to the bottom of this.

“Why did the Krakow Institute still detect cyanide in gas chamber remains if there was none?”

Because they omitted long term stable cyanides, and tested only for free associated non-bound cyanides that are not stable in the timespan of decades. That is to say - the cyanides they tested for are an extremely poor fingerprint into the past. It would be like measuring a puddle in July to see how deep it was in January. It really is that simple Confused Jew. To put it scientifically: These results were found at or below the detection limit.

The detection limit exists to warn us that approaching this value (in ppm) that the readings are becoming unreliable, and are so fine that you can't reliably know if you have found cyanide, and it can't be replicated. You probably didn't know this because you didn't read his book, but Rudolf obtained two sets of analyses from two different laboratories using two different testing methodologies.

Samples from the homicidal gas chambers with ever-so-slightly-above detection limit were not reproducible.



These laboratories were the Fresenius Institute using titrimetric analysis, the second is IUS Stuttgart using photometric analysis. Again, the samples when compared at or below the detection limit are not perfectly reproducable in this range, because this range is in the 6 or 7 ppm (parts per million). It is by definition a rounding error, or a margin error. The magnitude of long-term-stable cyanides is 10,000 - 20,000 which is five orders of magnitude higher.

Yet again - of the studies available to us, Rudolf's has the most redundancy built into it, by far. More on this below.

“If Rudolf is right, why wasn’t his work ever accepted in peer-reviewed chemical literature?”

Not a chemical argument. Clear appeal to consensus fallacy. But I'll indulge anyway for those interested.

Holocaust denial is illegal in Rudolf's native Germany. It is also illegal in Poland, which is where the evidence is located, on property of the Auschwitz Musuem (which is a State run organisation). Laws obviously are a very good mechanism to disincentivise behaviours and actions. Germar Rudolf has been arrested for this, spent time in jail for this - and every expert in the field is abundantly aware of the consequences of pursuing this.

Incidentally, as briefly touched on in point 1 above - the Auschwitz Musuem in commissioning Markiewicz to test for cyanide, was de facto asking Markiewicz to commit a crime. Read that again: The Polish government commissioned Markiewicz to commit a crime. Now: When we are telling you that Markiewicz omitted long-term stable cyanides to test for conditions decades in the past; when he tells you this himself - you surely can rationalise that this was his best move in these circumstances. He was perfectly aware of Rudolf's legal troubles, and what awaited him should he fine a divergence of readings.

His rationale incidentally, is to tell us he doesn't understand the chemical processes of Hydrogen Cyanide reactions.

“Why did both survivors and SS officers describe the same gassing method independently if it never happened?”

Because they didn't.

Firstly this isn't a chemical argument. Secondly the testimony from all sources diverges wildly. I'll add "experts" to your list aswell. Below is a sample image of the divergences on just the sole point of the introduction devices. One simple detail you think would be easy to attain convergence on!



This image is so long i cannot contain it within one screenshot. It even omits the testimony of two sonderkommandos; Shaul Chazan and Lemke Phlishko. These were the men working in the Kremas who's job it was to tidy things up afterwards. They both said the pellets all fell out onto the floor to be swept up later. Read that again: the people who were "there" while this was "happening" claimed they had to sweep the pellets off the floor between the bodies.

Now, Robert Van Pelt has come along some decades later to tidy this all up and build us a replica device where the pellets needed to all stay inside at all times. Why? Because Van Pelt is smart, and he knows what needs to work.

The problem?

- He wasn't there
- He is deviating from the people who were
- Why believe someone who wasn't there over someone who was?
- People like you think everybody agreed with everybody else when they clearly didn't

See below where this has all been explained MONTHS ago if you had any interest in actually studying this as Sirius instructed you:

It's actually worse for the Kula Column theorists than it appears initially.

Two eye-wtinesses, Sonderkommandos nonetheless, Shaul Chazan and Lemke Phlishko, who were both working in the crematoria, both said the mesh columns were circular, were perforated metal and most interestingly, did not come all the way down to the floor, but rather the pellets fell out the bottom and onto the floor so they could be swept up off the floor later.

Remember, these were Sonderlommandos and so these guys would know best, right? So to answer your question Stubble, no they were sort of hovering above the bottom of the floor

Excerpt from Shaul Chazan's testimony:

[Greif] Did the grid column through which the gas was dropped reach all the way down to the floor?

[Chazan] Nearly to the floor. One had left a space which made it possible to clean there. One poured water out and brushed up the remaining pebbles.”

G. Greif, Wir weinten tränenlos… Augenzeugenberichte der jüdischen “Sonderkommandos” in Auschwitz, Böhlau Verlag, Cologne/Weimar/Vienna 1985, p. 237.

“If Prussian Blue formation is so conclusive, why is it patchy even in delousing chambers and largely absent in other well-documented cyanide fumigation sites around the world?”

Look at the photo of Majdanek and where the Prussian Blue culminates. Notice any patterns? I'll give you one pattern and you can investigate the rest: The PB formation is aggregated along the horizontal pipe. Now, re-read and apply everything that I told you about moisture accumulation and its impact on PB formation, and what you can expect about moisture accumulation in close proximity to a horizontal pipe.



In fact I am going to defer you to our resident Majdanek expert Mr Ziffel - he has a thread detailing all of this. You have been here three months, so it's probably about time you took a look. I would be doing Mr Ziffel a disservice as he has collated everything better than I ever could

“What would it take for you to reconsider Rudolf’s findings—are there any experts or forms of evidence you would find more credible than his report?”

This is a good question. For a start, I would wish to see Mr Rudolf's presented to an international audience by a reputable outlet. Lets not quibble about who is reputable or who is not, but for example if Rudolf were invited onto the Tucker Carlson show to sit face to face with Tucker for 3 hours. Tucker can even invite a rival expert to "debunk" him, and we can watch it play out.

We had something similar recently where Mr Rudolf was invited on the Jake Shields podcast. No expert could be found to debate Rudolf, i believe 5 or so various experts all pulled out. Finally one expert was found - Dr Vann, a professor of Genocide Studies at Calafornia State. The result? Dr Vann deferred to Rudolf on every point of technical detail because he didn't have any of the knowledge required to dispute Rudolf.

That's a fair falsification ceiling, I think.

If you found out tomorrow that the evidence for gassings was solid—physical, chemical, testimonial, and photographic—would that change anything for you emotionally or ideologically?”

In this post, and in another - you have unjustly accused holocaust revisionists as being stubborn or not willing to change our minds. I forget exactly how you worded it because I have this page open typing, but it was something like that. This is quite insulting, because each revisionist here, all of us... unanimously... started out as holocaust believers. And we all changed our minds when we read this stuff. This means, everybody here who is a revisionist has a 100% track record of changing our minds at the necessary time.

You have not demonstrated this at all, Confused Jew. You seem to be sitting at 0% as far as I can tell, and as I mentioned above, I feel you aren't even reading my posts. You can clarify this if you wish, but it's becoming very apparent to me!

[HansHill]

By the way i forgot to say: in point 1 above where Rudolf obtained two sets of samples, where the trace amounts were not replicable in the second set: he published the higher set in all instances. This is yet again another reason why the Rudolf study towers over that of Markiewicz.

[Stubble]

Good lord Mr Hill, a pill that red and that bitter probably needs a sugar coating.

[HansHill]

Good lord Mr Hill, a pill that red and that bitter probably needs a sugar coating.

[ConfusedJew]

Because they omitted long term stable cyanides, and tested only for free associated non-bound cyanides that are not stable in the timespan of decades. That is to say - the cyanides they tested for are an extremely poor fingerprint into the past. It would be like measuring a puddle in July to see how deep it was in January. It really is that simple Confused Jew. To put it scientifically: These results were found at or below the detection limit.

That doesn't answer the question.

The Krakow Institute (1990) tested for both free cyanide compounds and iron-bound cyanides, including Prussian blue — a long-term stable compound. They did find trace amounts of non bound cyanides in the gas chambers. Where did those come from?

Soluble (non-bound) cyanides are cyanide ions and simple compounds that dissolve in water. They degrade quickly in the environment (especially with rain, sunlight, and air exposure) which explains why there was not much left but they still did find them.

The detection limit exists to warn us that approaching this value (in ppm) that the readings are becoming unreliable, and are so fine that you can't reliably know if you have found cyanide, and it can't be replicated. You probably didn't know this because you didn't read his book, but Rudolf obtained two sets of analyses from two different laboratories using two different testing methodologies.

The detection limit (DL) in chemical analysis is the lowest quantity a method can reliably measure — not the threshold between “something” and “nothing.” Readings near the detection limit are low, but they still suggest presence if they’re repeated across multiple samples, found with different methods, detected in historically relevant locations.

Even if a reading is just above or near the DL, that means some cyanide is still detectable decades later — which is remarkable given the rain, sunlight, acidic weathering, and demolition and exposure since 1945.

Analogy: If a decades-old bloodstain still shows trace hemoglobin under luminol, you don’t say “we don't think there was ever any blood was there” — the trace is evidence of past presence.

Samples from the homicidal gas chambers with ever-so-slightly-above detection limit were not reproducible.



These laboratories were the Fresenius Institute using titrimetric analysis, the second is IUS Stuttgart using photometric analysis. Again, the samples when compared at or below the detection limit are not perfectly reproducable in this range, because this range is in the 6 or 7 ppm (parts per million). It is by definition a rounding error, or a margin error. The magnitude of long-term-stable cyanides is 10,000 - 20,000 which is five orders of magnitude higher.

I don't understand what you are saying here or what the chart is that you are presenting. Will you re-explain and provide more context?

Not a chemical argument. Clear appeal to consensus fallacy. But I'll indulge anyway for those interested.

Holocaust denial is illegal in Rudolf's native Germany. It is also illegal in Poland, which is where the evidence is located, on property of the Auschwitz Musuem (which is a State run organisation). Laws obviously are a very good mechanism to disincentivise behaviours and actions. Germar Rudolf has been arrested for this, spent time in jail for this - and every expert in the field is abundantly aware of the consequences of pursuing this.

It's not an appeal to consensus. I'm not a die hard believer in peer reviewed science but don't you think that some publication in the world would have accepted his findings if they were rigorously studied and it was so straight forward?

You are right though that this isn't a chemistry argument and I don't want to defend peer reviewed science so we can just forget about that.

Incidentally, as briefly touched on in point 1 above - the Auschwitz Musuem in commissioning Markiewicz to test for cyanide, was de facto asking Markiewicz to commit a crime. Read that again: The Polish government commissioned Markiewicz to commit a crime. Now: When we are telling you that Markiewicz omitted long-term stable cyanides to test for conditions decades in the past; when he tells you this himself - you surely can rationalise that this was his best move in these circumstances. He was perfectly aware of Rudolf's legal troubles, and what awaited him should he fine a divergence of readings.

ChatGPT totally rejects this so you are welcome to refute what it says here.

There is zero evidence that Dr. Jan Markiewicz or the Polish government acted unlawfully or were pressured to falsify or limit research. The Markiewicz study (1994) was conducted by the Krakow Institute of Forensic Research, an established scientific institution. It was not illegal to test gas chamber remains for cyanide in Poland. No evidence suggests that testing for cyanide in Auschwitz ruins constituted a crime in any jurisdiction, including post-Communist Poland.

His rationale incidentally, is to tell us he doesn't understand the chemical processes of Hydrogen Cyanide reactions.

Markiewicz explicitly addressed Prussian blue in the study and explained why it would not be expected to form in homicidal gas chambers:

“The lack of formation of ferric ferrocyanide [Prussian blue] in the walls of the gas chambers can be explained by the short time of exposure to hydrogen cyanide and the properties of the wall materials.”
– Markiewicz et al., 1994

“Why did both survivors and SS officers describe the same gassing method independently if it never happened?”

Because they didn't.

Firstly this isn't a chemical argument. Secondly the testimony from all sources diverges wildly. I'll add "experts" to your list aswell. Below is a sample image of the divergences on just the sole point of the introduction devices. One simple detail you think would be easy to attain convergence on!

Holocaust deniers often cherry-pick minor discrepancies in witness accounts to falsely claim that “everyone disagrees” — and then leap to the conclusion that nothing happened at all. That logic doesn't hold up historically, legally, or forensically.

It is normal and expected for eyewitness accounts to have variations — especially from people under extreme trauma and operating with limited technical understanding.

Survivor, SS, and expert accounts consistently agree that Zyklon B was used, it was introduced from above (via roof openings or columns), people died within minutes, the chambers were ventilated afterward and the bodies were cremated, often in on-site crematoria.

This cross-confirmation comes from Jewish survivors (e.g., Sonderkommando), SS perpetrators (e.g., Rudolf Höss, Pery Broad, Hans Münch), independent forensic investigators post-war, and German construction and logistics documents.

Even courts as early as the 1947 Auschwitz Trial in Krakow recognized this overwhelming consistency.

The testimonies do have inconsistencies but they don’t “diverge wildly”, there is a ton of convergence on many of the important factors.

[ConfusedJew]

It's actually worse for the Kula Column theorists than it appears initially.

Two eye-wtinesses, Sonderkommandos nonetheless, Shaul Chazan and Lemke Phlishko, who were both working in the crematoria, both said the mesh columns were circular, were perforated metal and most interestingly, did not come all the way down to the floor, but rather the pellets fell out the bottom and onto the floor so they could be swept up off the floor later.

Remember, these were Sonderlommandos and so these guys would know best, right? So to answer your question Stubble, no they were sort of hovering above the bottom of the floor

This is such a minor discrepancy it means very little to me. I can agree with you on the facts that there was not perfect consistency between the two reports but in my opinion, I don't even consider that evidence of anything worth mentioning other than testimonies are imperfect.

This argument pretends that if every single witness doesn’t describe the same number of bolts, holes, or feet from the floor, then the entire system must be fiction. That's not how human memory works (especially under trauma), how legal testimony is evaluated, or history is reconstructed. It doesn't faze me at all. We can chalk that up to a difference of interpretation but I think more than 99% of neutral people would agree with me. We can move on but why do you think that is useful information to introduce? I am curious about that at a meta level.

Look at the photo of Majdanek and where the Prussian Blue culminates. Notice any patterns? I'll give you one pattern and you can investigate the rest: The PB formation is aggregated along the horizontal pipe. Now, re-read and apply everything that I told you about moisture accumulation and its impact on PB formation, and what you can expect about moisture accumulation in close proximity to a horizontal pipe.

Not sure what argument you are trying to make here. The fact that it forms more around a horizontal pipe is consistent with localized moisture and better reaction conditions that didn't exist in the gas chambers. How does saying this advance your argument?

This is a good question. For a start, I would wish to see Mr Rudolf's presented to an international audience by a reputable outlet. Let's not quibble about who is reputable or who is not, but for example if Rudolf were invited onto the Tucker Carlson show to sit face to face with Tucker for 3 hours. Tucker can even invite a rival expert to "debunk" him, and we can watch it play out.

I don't see why you think that Tucker Carlson would be a better, or even good, arbiter of this? TV shows like Tucker Carlson’s, are for entertainment and highly partisan, not a good platform to resolve historical or scientific controversies in my opinion. Many people would share that opinion and he admitted to lying about the 2020 election on TV while questioned under oath.

We had something similar recently where Mr Rudolf was invited on the Jake Shields podcast. No expert could be found to debate Rudolf, i believe 5 or so various experts all pulled out. Finally one expert was found - Dr Vann, a professor of Genocide Studies at Calafornia State. The result? Dr Vann deferred to Rudolf on every point of technical detail because he didn't have any of the knowledge required to dispute Rudolf.

That's a fair falsification ceiling, I think.

The idea that Germar Rudolf “won” because experts wouldn’t appear on a podcast is not a sign of his credibility, I see it as a sign that people don't want to waste their time debating him on a poorly respected podcast.

It would be like if a physicist declined to debate a Flat Earther on a fourth tier podcast. Would you think that is proof that the Flat Earther is right?

In this post, and in another - you have unjustly accused holocaust revisionists as being stubborn or not willing to change our minds. I forget exactly how you worded it because I have this page open typing, but it was something like that. This is quite insulting, because each revisionist here, all of us... unanimously... started out as holocaust believers. And we all changed our minds when we read this stuff. This means, everybody here who is a revisionist has a 100% track record of changing our minds at the necessary time.

It was just a question from ChatGPT. I can answer it for you in reverse. If all of a sudden I started to believe that the Holocaust was made up, a conspiratorial hoax, I would be quite shocking and it would change how I trust any kind of information at all. Probably like how Truman begins to realize that he's in a completely fake world. I would have to rethink a whole lot of things. I know the history books have issues and miss a lot of critical events and causes, but I don't currently think it would be possible for a history book could be that wrong about something that big.

How would you feel if you came to the realization that you somehow started to believe that a horrible event was just a made up conspiracy when it was true the whole time? Would it make you doubt your own judgment? I would start to question absolutely everything if the reverse happened.

You have not demonstrated this at all, Confused Jew. You seem to be sitting at 0% as far as I can tell, and as I mentioned above, I feel you aren't even reading my posts. You can clarify this if you wish, but it's becoming very apparent to me!

I am reading your posts. We can continue digging into the specific details of the chemistry again if you like. I just found some interesting questions from ChatGPT and was curious to see how you might respond.

[Stubble]

CJ, you really don't know how charts work, do you?

Also, I don't think the problem with communication is on my end based on what I see here. I believe you may have a problem with reading comprehension.

With both of those things in mind, perhaps chemistry isn't for you.

Mr Hill, I told you that pill needed some sugar on it, this fella refuses to take his medicine.

For the record, the eel like nature of those last two posts are plainly visible CJ. Don't get me wrong, you could still edit them out of the record, but, those that see this, and I mean really see it, they are going to recognize it for what it is.

When you want to talk about those 'mundane details' with 'Kula's Columns', drop in to the thread there. We can talk about how not knowing if something throws pellets, or collects them, touches the floor, or doesn't touch the floor, is made of mesh, or sheet metal etc are just, mundane details. It is tantamount to you telling me you operated a front end loader for 18 months, and then, not knowing any of the controls on that model. It doesn't make any fucking sense. These aren't things like, 'what color was it', or 'how tall was it', this is 'did it drop shit on the floor, or did it collect shit in a retractable cup?'. They apparently interacted with these things every day, manipulating bodies contaminated with hydrogen cyanide wearing no ppe. They should know if they went all the way down to the floor or not.

[ConfusedJew]

Let me re-write that last message for you using ChatGPT so it is easier to understand.

CJ, it's becoming increasingly clear that either you don’t understand how charts are supposed to work, or you’re intentionally avoiding direct engagement. Based on what I’ve seen here, the communication issues aren’t on my end—they’re rooted in your inability (or refusal) to comprehend basic points and answer plainly.

And let's be honest: if someone claimed to operate a front-end loader for 18 months but couldn't describe how the controls work, we'd all call bullshit. Likewise, if you're telling me people worked with these systems daily—handling cyanide-contaminated bodies, no less—but can't remember whether the unit dropped pellets on the floor or collected them in a cup, or whether it was mesh or solid, that's not a "mundane detail." That's foundational knowledge. The kind you can’t miss if you were actually there.

The slippery tone in your last two posts hasn’t gone unnoticed. Sure, you can try to clean it up after the fact—but those really paying attention will see it for what it is.

When you’re ready to engage seriously, without deflection, drop by the Kula's Columns thread. We can talk there—about facts, not evasions.

I'm really just interested in sticking mostly to the chemistry at this point. The presence of cyanide residue in the gas chambers is very compelling information to me and I think it would be to anybody.

[Fred Ziffel]

here is the other side of the wall with the pipe and blue staining. this is a shared wall 20cm thick
I indicate the location on the drawing, see blue for location

Diffusion from "A" Chamber to B2. Nothing like this in B1
There was a room heater in "A" Chamber. both input and output ducts of the heater are on the opposite wall. There seems to be heavier blue staining of the end of where the room heater is located than the side towards B41

[ConfusedJew]

What is the point that you're trying to make?

You are providing some kind of evidence but you aren't making it clear what that is supposed to show or why its relevant.

[Nessie]

Leuchter and Rudolf could not even agree on what the residue levels were.

[HansHill]

Because they omitted long term stable cyanides, and tested only for free associated non-bound cyanides that are not stable in the timespan of decades. That is to say - the cyanides they tested for are an extremely poor fingerprint into the past. It would be like measuring a puddle in July to see how deep it was in January. It really is that simple Confused Jew. To put it scientifically: These results were found at or below the detection limit.

That doesn't answer the question.

That is the literal answer to the question.

Q - How did they detect cyanide
A - Because they limited it to free associated cyanides

The Krakow Institute (1990) tested for both free cyanide compounds and iron-bound cyanides, including Prussian blue — a long-term stable compound. They did find trace amounts of non bound cyanides in the gas chambers. Where did those come from?

Soluble (non-bound) cyanides are cyanide ions and simple compounds that dissolve in water. They degrade quickly in the environment (especially with rain, sunlight, and air exposure) which explains why there was not much left but they still did find them.

This demonstrates that the 1990 Krakow study was superior to the 1994 Krakow study. The results agree with those of Leuchter, Rudolf, Ball, and Mattogno. 1994 is an outlier because it omitted testing for the murder weapon.

The detection limit exists to warn us that approaching this value (in ppm) that the readings are becoming unreliable, and are so fine that you can't reliably know if you have found cyanide, and it can't be replicated. You probably didn't know this because you didn't read his book, but Rudolf obtained two sets of analyses from two different laboratories using two different testing methodologies.

The detection limit (DL) in chemical analysis is the lowest quantity a method can reliably measure — not the threshold between “something” and “nothing.” Readings near the detection limit are low, but they still suggest presence if they’re repeated across multiple samples, found with different methods, detected in historically relevant locations.

Even if a reading is just above or near the DL, that means some cyanide is still detectable decades later — which is remarkable given the rain, sunlight, acidic weathering, and demolition and exposure since 1945.

Read your sentence in bold. Now go back and read what I originally told you that Rudolf obtained two readings and they differed at the DL.

Analogy: If a decades-old bloodstain still shows trace hemoglobin under luminol, you don’t say “we don't think there was ever any blood was there” — the trace is evidence of past presence.

Bad analogy because blood is organic matter, whereas cyanide can be found in nature. Finding blood somewhere unexpected is just that - unexpected. Finding cyanide somewhere is common and explainable.



I am convinced you are not paying attention to these arguments or thinking critically about this. This is becoming insufferable.

Samples from the homicidal gas chambers with ever-so-slightly-above detection limit were not reproducible.



These laboratories were the Fresenius Institute using titrimetric analysis, the second is IUS Stuttgart using photometric analysis. Again, the samples when compared at or below the detection limit are not perfectly reproducable in this range, because this range is in the 6 or 7 ppm (parts per million). It is by definition a rounding error, or a margin error. The magnitude of long-term-stable cyanides is 10,000 - 20,000 which is five orders of magnitude higher.

I don't understand what you are saying here or what the chart is that you are presenting. Will you re-explain and provide more context?

Sure, although I do believe it was made clear in the original post. At or below the detection limit, any reading is considered unreliable and non-replicable. Knowing this, Rudolf ensured to have all samples re-tested using a different method, in a different institute. You may be aware of whats known as a "double blind experiment". The readings for these DL samples were indeed non-replicable, meaning the two different methods showed two different readings. This means Rudolf is right, and that the DL readings are not considered as proof of the presence of cyanide decades earlier.

Not a chemical argument. Clear appeal to consensus fallacy. But I'll indulge anyway for those interested.

Holocaust denial is illegal in Rudolf's native Germany. It is also illegal in Poland, which is where the evidence is located, on property of the Auschwitz Musuem (which is a State run organisation). Laws obviously are a very good mechanism to disincentivise behaviours and actions. Germar Rudolf has been arrested for this, spent time in jail for this - and every expert in the field is abundantly aware of the consequences of pursuing this.

It's not an appeal to consensus. I'm not a die hard believer in peer reviewed science but don't you think that some publication in the world would have accepted his findings if they were rigorously studied and it was so straight forward?

You are right though that this isn't a chemistry argument and I don't want to defend peer reviewed science so we can just forget about that.

Incidentally, as briefly touched on in point 1 above - the Auschwitz Musuem in commissioning Markiewicz to test for cyanide, was de facto asking Markiewicz to commit a crime. Read that again: The Polish government commissioned Markiewicz to commit a crime. Now: When we are telling you that Markiewicz omitted long-term stable cyanides to test for conditions decades in the past; when he tells you this himself - you surely can rationalise that this was his best move in these circumstances. He was perfectly aware of Rudolf's legal troubles, and what awaited him should he fine a divergence of readings.

ChatGPT totally rejects this so you are welcome to refute what it says here.

There is zero evidence that Dr. Jan Markiewicz or the Polish government acted unlawfully or were pressured to falsify or limit research. The Markiewicz study (1994) was conducted by the Krakow Institute of Forensic Research, an established scientific institution. It was not illegal to test gas chamber remains for cyanide in Poland. No evidence suggests that testing for cyanide in Auschwitz ruins constituted a crime in any jurisdiction, including post-Communist Poland.

Laughably missing the point. I did NOT suggest Markiewicz acted unlawfully. I suggested the opposite. He was FORCED to act lawfully by affirming the Holocaust. Please re-read the passage again critically.

His rationale incidentally, is to tell us he doesn't understand the chemical processes of Hydrogen Cyanide reactions.

Markiewicz explicitly addressed Prussian blue in the study and explained why it would not be expected to form in homicidal gas chambers:

“The lack of formation of ferric ferrocyanide [Prussian blue] in the walls of the gas chambers can be explained by the short time of exposure to hydrogen cyanide and the properties of the wall materials.”
– Markiewicz et al., 1994

Missing the point entirely. I am telling you, and Markiewicz is telling you, he doesn't understand the behaviour of HCN at the chemical level

It is hard to imagine the chemical reactions and physico-
chemical processes that could have led to the formation of Prussian blue in
that place.

- Markiewicz et al. 1994, p. 20

“Why did both survivors and SS officers describe the same gassing method independently if it never happened?”

Because they didn't.

Firstly this isn't a chemical argument. Secondly the testimony from all sources diverges wildly. I'll add "experts" to your list aswell. Below is a sample image of the divergences on just the sole point of the introduction devices. One simple detail you think would be easy to attain convergence on!

Holocaust deniers often cherry-pick minor discrepancies in witness accounts to falsely claim that “everyone disagrees” — and then leap to the conclusion that nothing happened at all. That logic doesn't hold up historically, legally, or forensically.

It is normal and expected for eyewitness accounts to have variations — especially from people under extreme trauma and operating with limited technical understanding.

Survivor, SS, and expert accounts consistently agree that Zyklon B was used, it was introduced from above (via roof openings or columns), people died within minutes, the chambers were ventilated afterward and the bodies were cremated, often in on-site crematoria.

This cross-confirmation comes from Jewish survivors (e.g., Sonderkommando), SS perpetrators (e.g., Rudolf Höss, Pery Broad, Hans Münch), independent forensic investigators post-war, and German construction and logistics documents.

Even courts as early as the 1947 Auschwitz Trial in Krakow recognized this overwhelming consistency.

The testimonies do have inconsistencies but they don’t “diverge wildly”, there is a ton of convergence on many of the important factors.

Missing the point. You asked:

Why did both survivors and SS officers describe the same gassing method independently if it never happened?

And my answer is firmly - they did not describe the same gassing method, at all. This is not cherry picking, in fact I gave you an orchard of picked cherries. Likewise is this ever used to "jump to conclusions". I am addressing your claim that the same method was described uniformly. For you to rationalise why there are differences after saying there were no differences, is beyond tone deaf, and again supports my suspicions that you are not engaged critically with this.

[HansHill]

It's actually worse for the Kula Column theorists than it appears initially.

Two eye-wtinesses, Sonderkommandos nonetheless, Shaul Chazan and Lemke Phlishko, who were both working in the crematoria, both said the mesh columns were circular, were perforated metal and most interestingly, did not come all the way down to the floor, but rather the pellets fell out the bottom and onto the floor so they could be swept up off the floor later.

Remember, these were Sonderlommandos and so these guys would know best, right? So to answer your question Stubble, no they were sort of hovering above the bottom of the floor

This is such a minor discrepancy it means very little to me. I can agree with you on the facts that there was not perfect consistency between the two reports but in my opinion, I don't even consider that evidence of anything worth mentioning other than testimonies are imperfect.

Again missing the point. You claimed the same gassing method was described uniformly. I am telling you this is not the case.

This argument pretends that if every single witness doesn’t describe the same number of bolts, holes, or feet from the floor, then the entire system must be fiction. That's not how human memory works (especially under trauma), how legal testimony is evaluated, or history is reconstructed. It doesn't faze me at all. We can chalk that up to a difference of interpretation but I think more than 99% of neutral people would agree with me. We can move on but why do you think that is useful information to introduce? I am curious about that at a meta level.

Again.... because you seem to think the witnesses agreed on a gassing method. I am telling you they did not.

Stubble has already mentioned it, but the example i gave of the two sonderkommandos is not a minor discrepancy. It points directly to a divergence of methodology. Consider the implications this introduces for you, and please think critically (even though i suspect you wont)

- Once we begin to argue exposure times, you need the time to be 10 minutes exposure time
- If the pellets were all on the floor, in between piles of bodies off-gassing continuously while the Sonderkommandos slowly remove the bodies 1 by 1, to what extent does this increase exposure time? 3 hours? 4 hours? Remember: the pellets are falling out the bottom of the column, and people are dying inside the room. The pellets are now locked inside the room and obfuscated by the bodies.

This is NOT a minor discrepancy for you, and the fact you think it is, is yet again demonstrable you are not engaged, not thinking critically, and are simply not reading what is presented.

Look at the photo of Majdanek and where the Prussian Blue culminates. Notice any patterns? I'll give you one pattern and you can investigate the rest: The PB formation is aggregated along the horizontal pipe. Now, re-read and apply everything that I told you about moisture accumulation and its impact on PB formation, and what you can expect about moisture accumulation in close proximity to a horizontal pipe.

Not sure what argument you are trying to make here. The fact that it forms more around a horizontal pipe is consistent with localized moisture and better reaction conditions that didn't exist in the gas chambers. How does saying this advance your argument?

You said PB formation was "patchy" implying it doesn't form predictably or can be modelled. I'm showing you it is predictable and can be modelled readily, giving the example of the pipe as a way this could be modelled. We will be using these modelling skills once we begin examining the moisture conditions. That is of course if I still have the patience to continue this, like I said I am convinced now you are simply not engaged.

Also as it relates to Majdanek its good to see Fred here, and yet again I defer to him on all aspects of Majdanek.

This is a good question. For a start, I would wish to see Mr Rudolf's presented to an international audience by a reputable outlet. Let's not quibble about who is reputable or who is not, but for example if Rudolf were invited onto the Tucker Carlson show to sit face to face with Tucker for 3 hours. Tucker can even invite a rival expert to "debunk" him, and we can watch it play out.

I don't see why you think that Tucker Carlson would be a better, or even good, arbiter of this? TV shows like Tucker Carlson’s, are for entertainment and highly partisan, not a good platform to resolve historical or scientific controversies in my opinion. Many people would share that opinion and he admitted to lying about the 2020 election on TV while questioned under oath.

LOL i specified i don't want to even get into a debate about who is credible or not. That is literally not the point. The point is I want for Rudolf's material to be made broadly public to international audiences and openly discussed, amongst experts who are uncompromised or free from legal entanglements in so doing. If 100 million people get to see a Holocaust debate involving Germar Rudolf on CNN, i consider that the goal.

LOL for you to quibble about Tucker Carlson's platform after me explicitly asking to please not focus it.

We had something similar recently where Mr Rudolf was invited on the Jake Shields podcast. No expert could be found to debate Rudolf, i believe 5 or so various experts all pulled out. Finally one expert was found - Dr Vann, a professor of Genocide Studies at Calafornia State. The result? Dr Vann deferred to Rudolf on every point of technical detail because he didn't have any of the knowledge required to dispute Rudolf.

That's a fair falsification ceiling, I think.

The idea that Germar Rudolf “won” because experts wouldn’t appear on a podcast is not a sign of his credibility, I see it as a sign that people don't want to waste their time debating him on a poorly respected podcast.

I didn't say he won. There was nothing to win. There was simply a debate to be had, and the debate fell apart because the expert was not informed.

It would be like if a physicist declined to debate a Flat Earther on a fourth tier podcast. Would you think that is proof that the Flat Earther is right?

Dr Vann accepted the debate. He then admitted to not having the knowledge to rebut Rudolf. Did you read what I wrote?

In this post, and in another - you have unjustly accused holocaust revisionists as being stubborn or not willing to change our minds. I forget exactly how you worded it because I have this page open typing, but it was something like that. This is quite insulting, because each revisionist here, all of us... unanimously... started out as holocaust believers. And we all changed our minds when we read this stuff. This means, everybody here who is a revisionist has a 100% track record of changing our minds at the necessary time.

It was just a question from ChatGPT. I can answer it for you in reverse. If all of a sudden I started to believe that the Holocaust was made up, a conspiratorial hoax, I would be quite shocking and it would change how I trust any kind of information at all. Probably like how Truman begins to realize that he's in a completely fake world. I would have to rethink a whole lot of things. I know the history books have issues and miss a lot of critical events and causes, but I don't currently think it would be possible for a history book could be that wrong about something that big.

How would you feel if you came to the realization that you somehow started to believe that a horrible event was just a made up conspiracy when it was true the whole time? Would it make you doubt your own judgment? I would start to question absolutely everything if the reverse happened.

This happens relatively frequently, actually. Learning that the Gulf Of Tonkin attacks (or more accurately second attack) was fabricated was a big deal for me given my personal background in that particular situation. Likewise WMDs being found out to be entirely contrived in the early 2000s. Likewise MKUltra being demonstrably proven, many families I'm sure have dealt with the fallout of that disaster. I can continue - Iran contra, Operation Northwoods, and so on and so forth, and thats not even getting into the spicy stuff from the present day like Jeffrey Epstein or what have you.

You have not demonstrated this at all, Confused Jew. You seem to be sitting at 0% as far as I can tell, and as I mentioned above, I feel you aren't even reading my posts. You can clarify this if you wish, but it's becoming very apparent to me!

I am reading your posts. We can continue digging into the specific details of the chemistry again if you like. I just found some interesting questions from ChatGPT and was curious to see how you might respond.

Fine, however going forward if i note redundancy in questions my answer will simply be a link to where it has been addressed before. If I feel you are not engaged with something or are not thinking critically I will simply state that for the thread and move on.

[HansHill]

Leuchter and Rudolf could not even agree on what the residue levels were.

Correct

[Stubble]

here is the other side of the wall with the pipe and blue staining. this is a shared wall 20cm thick
I indicate the location on the drawing, see blue for location

Diffusion from "A" Chamber to B2. Nothing like this in B1
There was a room heater in "A" Chamber. both input and output ducts of the heater are on the opposite wall. There seems to be heavier blue staining of the end of where the room heater is located than the side towards B41

Now that, right there, that is what permeability and mobility look like. Thank you Fred.

Also, where it formed on the other side of the wall and where it didn't are important for understanding basic chemical reactions.

We should have iron blue in the LK. We don't.