Forensic Chemistry

[Nessie]

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

Correct

Which means that more work is needed, before any definitive conclusion can be made. That is what Rudolf ends his report with, along with his admission he may be wrong.

To base a claim, as major as there were no gas chambers, which flies in the face of a ton of evidence that there were gas chambers, on results that vary as much as Leuchter and Rudolf, is, frankly, not very clever.

[HansHill]

For those reading with critical thinking skills - what Nessie is somewhat correctly but somewhat confusedly referring to is the set of samples at or near the detection limit being non-replicable (or as he puts it they "could not even agree on what the residue levels were")

Thank you Nessie for your first contribution to this thread that adds value of a chemical nature and which I haven't reported to the mods (even though technically what you are saying is redundant and I have explained it twice already to Confused Jew but i don't remind repeating myself for the cheap seats).

On that note if you need it explained a third time I infact might report it to the mods as repetitive and time wasting.

[Wetzelrad]

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

This is a fake quote. You are continuing to hallucinate in every post you make, and no one is calling you out on it.

[ConfusedJew]

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

This is a fake quote. You are continuing to hallucinate in every post you make, and no one is calling you out on it.

That wording is not a direct quotation from Markiewicz et al.’s 1994 paper. Instead, it's a paraphrase that neatly captures the study’s main findings and conclusions, but it doesn’t appear verbatim in the original text.

Who cares? Please stop distracting the conversation and wasting time.

[HansHill]

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

This is a fake quote. You are continuing to hallucinate in every post you make, and no one is calling you out on it.

That wording is not a direct quotation from Markiewicz et al.’s 1994 paper. Instead, it's a paraphrase that neatly captures the study’s main findings and conclusions, but it doesn’t appear verbatim in the original text.

Who cares? Please stop distracting the conversation and wasting time.

Just for the record, I in fact missed the fabricated quote, and I thank Wetzelrad for flagging it.

Confused Jew - you presented it within quotation marks, and cited it as such. If a revisionist did that, you would call us deceptive, misleading and all manner of other things. Saying who cares is also very tone deaf, especially in light of hallucinations, you not checking basic output before posting, and failure to do any sort of due dilligence.

[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.

That is the literal answer to the question.

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

This response isn't making logical sense and you aren't answering the question still.

Free cyanide compounds are highly unstable and degrade quickly, especially over decades. So if anything, limiting tests to free cyanide would reduce the chances of detecting anything, not increase them.

The real question is: why was any cyanide detected at all after so many years, especially considering environmental exposure and material degradation? The fact that traces were found — even of unstable compounds — actually supports the historical record, not undermines it.

If you don't mind, let's stick to this line of inquiry for now and we'll circle back to the others later. To me this is almost as strong evidence as you can find that there was the usage of cyanide in the homicidal gas chambers, especially along with the other multiple pieces of evidence backing it up.

I have no idea why you find any cyanide at all in what you claim was a morgue. Because cyanide degrades, it is possible that heavy cyanide usage may have occurred but still been completely undetectable many years down the line. But they still found some.

[Stubble]

When I said eel, I may have misspoken, a slug.

You sir, are incredibly dishonest.

Also, just note, everyone saw it, and we all care.

[ConfusedJew]

Just for the record, I in fact missed the fabricated quote, and I thank Wetzelrad for flagging it.

Confused Jew - you presented it within quotation marks, and cited it as such. If a revisionist did that, you would call us deceptive, misleading and all manner of other things. Saying who cares is also very tone deaf, especially in light of hallucinations, you not checking basic output before posting, and failure to do any sort of due dilligence.

I'm doing due diligence. I don't know how to deal with the issue of hallucinations. I'm totally fine withdrawing an argument or claim if there's a material hallucination. Please do correct those. But complaining that a paraphrased section was put into quotations is useless if the argument itself is accurate and relevant.

[Nessie]

Why do Leuchter and Rudolf's results for samples from Krema I, vary?

[ConfusedJew]

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.

I need you to explain this more clearly.

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.

This may be true but there's no reason that you'd expect to find cyanide in an alleged morgue.

Cyanide is not produced by human decomposition. Morgues do not involve processes (like combustion or fermentation) that produce hydrogen cyanide. Unless cyanide was used, there's no plausible reason for it to be present in structural materials (walls, mortar, plaster).

The term “trace” in forensic chemistry can still mean significantly above background levels. For example, if building materials from a morgue contain parts per million of cyanide compounds, and surrounding structures do not — that’s strong evidence of chemical exposure, not random environmental presence.

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.

This doesn't support Rudolf's broader conclusion. Unreliable low-level results don't prove that cyanide was never present, especially given that hydrogen cyanide is volatile and degrades over time, particularly in porous materials exposed to the elements for decades. While trace results may be inconclusive, they don’t disprove the historical or forensic record — and selectively using that uncertainty to deny well-documented mass murder is not a scientifically valid argument.

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.

We can agree to disagree on this. Overall, the method that they described was very similar and you are finding what I consider to be a very tiny difference and exaggerating it. I'd bet a ton of money that most people would agree with me on this.

But it's like arguing with 99 is close to 100 and you are saying a 1% difference is huge when I find that to be practically very insignificance in this context. Sure, 99 is different from 100, but not relevant to me.

[HansHill]

very tiny difference

Confused Jew - if you consider it a very tiny difference, as to whether the pellets were removed immediately (5-10 mins), or left to off-gas indefinitely inside the room during the removal and cleanup... then you simply are not thinking critically, yet again, and you are sleepwalking into comical contradictions. This one detail is central to your entire position without you even understanding why.

You may not realise it now, but you will once we discuss exposure times.

I will address the remaining points when I get some free time, although I will be reading from a distance!

[Stubble]

Sometimes I stood there, thunderstruck...

[Wetzelrad]

I'm doing due diligence. I don't know how to deal with the issue of hallucinations. I'm totally fine withdrawing an argument or claim if there's a material hallucination. Please do correct those. But complaining that a paraphrased section was put into quotations is useless if the argument itself is accurate and relevant.

Most of your hallucinations are material. This particular one misrepresented Markiewicz et al's paper, which was accurately quoted by HansHill. You still haven't engaged with what Markiewicz actually wrote, you've only substituted your own fabricated quote.

[Wetzelrad]

Citing ‘84 hours of exposure’ is misleading. The actual contact time between Zyklon B vapors and the walls was often very short — maybe only a few minutes per gassing, before ventilation began. Zyklon B was dropped in from above in granular form. Gas dissipated after ~20 minutes, and ventilation began soon after.

Here, ConfusedJew's confused argument is that hydrogen cyanide only contacted the walls for "a few minutes per gassing", a length of time he says is "very short". This means that HCN, beginning near the center of the room, takes X number of minutes to reach the closest wall. If it moves so slowly, could it even reach the corners of the room? How would victims on the edge of the gas chambers be killed if they only received a few minutes worth of gas?

CJ apparently doesn't understand the concept of concentration as it applies to gases. In reality the HCN would be in contact with the wall almost instantly because of diffusion.

He also writes that the gas dissipated before ventilation began, which is utter nonsense. Why use ventilation at all if the gas can disappear on its own?

[ConfusedJew]

very tiny difference

Confused Jew - if you consider it a very tiny difference, as to whether the pellets were removed immediately (5-10 mins), or left to off-gas indefinitely inside the room during the removal and cleanup... then you simply are not thinking critically, yet again, and you are sleepwalking into comical contradictions. This one detail is central to your entire position without you even understanding why.

You may not realise it now, but you will once we discuss exposure times.

I will address the remaining points when I get some free time, although I will be reading from a distance!

I will gladly change my mind if you are able to explain to me why that's significant when we get to that point of the argument. I'm open to that possibility but I don't see that right now based on what I understand of this right now. I'm continuing to learn.