Forensic Chemistry

[ConfusedJew]

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.

This is what I understand about the Markiwicz research. If AI is getting this wrong, please correct me.

Dr. Jan Markiewicz was a Polish chemist and forensic expert who led a scientific investigation into cyanide residues at Auschwitz and Birkenau in the 1990s. The work was commissioned by the Auschwitz State Museum in response to claims made by Holocaust deniers like Fred Leuchter and Germar Rudolf.

In 1994, they published a paper titled "A Study of the Cyanide Compounds Content in the Walls of the Gas Chambers in the Former Auschwitz and Birkenau Concentration Camps."

They took samples from homicidal gas chambers (like Crematorium II), delousing chambers, control buildings not exposed to Zyklon B. They used a spectrophotometric method to detect total cyanide compounds, not just free cyanide or Prussian blue.

Key Findings:
Cyanide residues were present in both the delousing chambers and some homicidal gas chamber samples.
Higher concentrations were found in delousing chambers — as expected — due to longer and repeated exposure to Zyklon B.
Smaller but measurable amounts were found in samples from gas chambers.
Control buildings showed no detectable cyanide — supporting the conclusion that the cyanide traces were not environmental or natural.

Markiewicz's work refuted the core arguments of Holocaust deniers:
He showed that the absence of Prussian blue does not mean cyanide was never used.
His methodology and conclusions were peer-reviewed and scientifically sound — unlike Leuchter or Rudolf.
His findings align with what chemistry actually predicts given the materials, usage patterns, and decades of degradation.

By the time of Markiewicz's study (1994), the science of how cyanide behaves in building materials, and why its residues vary across structures, was well understood by chemists and forensic scientists. No major forensic body accepted the denialist chemical arguments. The debate at that point was no longer scientific — it was political and ideological.

What's wrong with this? It sounds like this report has already refuted some of the points you made but I may have missed or misinterpreted some of your arguments.

[ConfusedJew]

I'm starting to understand this debate better now and the history of where all the arguments came from. At some point, maybe I'll create my own Keen-style prize that will be awarded if somebody can prove something that is impossible to prove.

[Stubble]

For those following at home, we are at this part of the story;

But if you really struck one of these fellows so telling a blow that, observed by the audience, he couldn't help but agree, and if you believed that this had taken you at least one step forward, your amazement was great the next day. They had not the slightest recollection of the day before, he rattled off his same old nonsense as though nothing at all had happened, and, if indignantly challenged, affected amazement; he couldn't remember a thing, except that he had proved the correctness of his assertions the previous day.

And thus the circle has been drawn anew and we are back where we started.

Markiewicz's work refuted the core arguments of Holocaust deniers:
He showed that the absence of Prussian blue does not mean cyanide was never used.
His methodology and conclusions were peer-reviewed and scientifically sound — unlike Leuchter or Rudolf.
His findings align with what chemistry actually predicts given the materials, usage patterns, and decades of degradation.

By the time of Markiewicz's study (1994), the science of how cyanide behaves in building materials, and why its residues vary across structures, was well understood by chemists and forensic scientists. No major forensic body accepted the denialist chemical arguments. The debate at that point was no longer scientific — it was political and ideological.

You see, we have completely disregarded everything learned, and now we reset at the starting block, then we wash, then we rinse, then we repeat, until, the other party tires, then, triumphantly, CJ declares victory of his argument, not by logic, not by deduction, not on merit, but, by sheer, naked, dumb repetition...

[borjastick]

download-resizehood.com.png (25.26 KiB) Viewed 366 times

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?

I love the hilarity of the confused messaging and the self inflicted wounds delivered by Nessie and CJ. Apparently the gas dissipated all of its own accord yet also apparently the gas chambers were gas tight etc . For what it's worth I would guess CJ is correct and the dodgy windows and wooden gas chamber doors helped with the air flow and dissipation of the deadly gas. It dissipated so quickly it could only just kill dem jews yet was too quick to stain dem walls.

You couldn't make this shit up.

[Wetzelrad]

This is what I understand about the Markiwicz research. If AI is getting this wrong, please correct me.

I believe your summary is correct or mostly correct until the conclusion. Here's where.

Markiewicz's work refuted the core arguments of Holocaust deniers:
He showed that the absence of Prussian blue does not mean cyanide was never used.

Whether or not Markiewicz et al showed that, I think everyone would agree with that statement in its broad sense, however it becomes erroneous in the case of the Birkenau crematoria. Let's argue that.

He showed that the absence of Prussian blue in the Birkenau crematoria does not mean cyanide was never used.

This is wrong. Markiewicz et al didn't actually address this question, much less arrive at a decisive conclusion to it. His study focuses almost entirely on non-iron compounds. He wrote that he could not imagine how the Prussian Blue was formed. His lack of understanding is why he excluded iron and iron cyanide compounds from his testing method. It is also why he did not try to make the arguments you have about alkalinity and other factors in the formation of Prussian Blue.

His methodology and conclusions were peer-reviewed and scientifically sound — unlike Leuchter or Rudolf.

I see nothing that indicates peer review. This study appears to have been published without a peer review. Regardless, both sides of the aisle have been reviewed by each other, rendering peer review superfluous.

Markiewicz's methodology is not entirely sound. He first performed sample taking and analysis in 1990 with results less favorable than the 1994 study, but he did not publish these results. He also set the detection limit at an (arbitrary?) point which rendered the dwelling quarters samples as NDs (not detected) but the gas chambers as just barely detected, when in fact they should have also been ND (Rudolf p.341). Both of these facts indicate scientific fraud.

His findings align with what chemistry actually predicts given the materials, usage patterns, and decades of degradation.

There are actually several points in the paper where he indicates that his understanding of what chemistry would predict was out of alignment with what it actually resulted in. For example, he wrote that, "It is hard to imagine the chemical reactions and physicochemical processes that could have led to the formation of Prussian blue in that place.", where there actually was Prussian Blue. He added that the ion which is a precursor to Prussian Blue is sensitive to sunlight, which he thought should prevent it from forming on the outside of a building, even though it did.

He also wrote that the reason high levels of cyanide traces were found in the disinfestation buildings was that they were not exposed to rainfall, in contradiction to the fact that the outside of the buildings were exposed to rainfall.

He went even further in stating that the crematoria "have been rinsed rather thoroughly by a column of water at least 35 m in height (!)" The exclamation mark indicates that he thought this a very remarkable fact. Later in the paper he struggles to explain why this did not destroy all traces, writing "The fact that they have survived so long in the chamber ruins is probably due to the possible formation of cyanide combinations [...]". As indicated by his usage of the word "probably", he was reaching for an explanation as to why the rinsing of rainwater did not destroy these traces, therefore his understanding of the chemistry was inadequate to predict it.

By the time of Markiewicz's study (1994), the science of how cyanide behaves in building materials, and why its residues vary across structures, was well understood by chemists and forensic scientists.

Clearly not, as the quotes above show Markiewicz himself did not understand it. Neither did Bailer or Roth. It wasn't until Green in 1998 that they had a good grasp of the chemistry involved, and Green mostly agreed with Rudolf.

In conclusion you are very wrong about Markiewicz just as he was very wrong about cyanide traces.

I have to say that all this is a foolish waste of time. Bad enough that you repeatedly brought falsehoods into this debate and lied about them, e.g. claiming they are immaterial or paraphrased. Now that you admit them you're right back to pivoting to and recycling alternate arguments. This is not the methodology of someone searching for truth. Plus you won't even read the exceptionally short Markiewicz paper.

[ConfusedJew]

Will come back to this more later but I disagree with your view about Green. He was simply involved in the litigation, he didn't do new experimentation or interpretation of the science or data.

Richard J. Green did not generate fundamentally new chemical discoveries about the Holocaust (e.g., new experimental findings on cyanide behavior), but he did make a unique and valuable contribution by applying established scientific knowledge to publicly and legally important controversies surrounding Holocaust denial.

[Stubble]

I have to say that all this is a foolish waste of time. Bad enough that you repeatedly brought falsehoods into this debate and lied about them, e.g. claiming they are immaterial or paraphrased. Now that you admit them you're right back to pivoting to and recycling alternate arguments. This is not the methodology of someone searching for truth. Plus you won't even read the exceptionally short Markiewicz paper.

Agreed. Mr Hill thinks the ole thread's still got some life in 'er though. I have no doubt he has a vial full of bright shiny red bitter pills. He is going to have to dip them in some sugar or sneak them in with some food if he expects CJ to take 'em.

[Archie]

I will mention for CJ's edification that there's a book that is now available for free in the Holocaust Pocketbooks series, Auschwitz - Forensically Examined. This is like a simplified version of the longer and more technical Chemistry of Auschwitz. I know CJ has said he does not read books, but perhaps he can manage this one given that it's only 104 pages of generously spaced text.

https://holocausthandbooks.com/book/aus ... -examined/

[Stubble]

He can't "read" it Archie, you can't get an AI summary because it violates the community guidelines.

[ConfusedJew]

I skimmed through that and it is a pretty good summary of most of the things that we've already discussed already but it's just a summary still.

[Wahrheitssucher]

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

I will mention for CJ's edification that there's a book that is now available for free in the Holocaust Pocketbooks series, Auschwitz - Forensically Examined. This is like a simplified version of the longer and more technical Chemistry of Auschwitz. I know CJ has said he does not read books, but perhaps he can manage this one given that it's only 104 pages of generously spaced text.

https://holocausthandbooks.com/book/aus ... -examined/

I skimmed through that…

[HansHill]

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.

...maybe I'll create my own Keen-style prize...

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.

Deal

1) What kinda ton of money are we talking?
2) I will DM you my Monero details privately
3) I will only keep half and donate the other half to Revisionist causes. Archie and Callafangers will assist me in choosing.
4) The condition will be met when you argue from necessity that the pellets must remain inside the column during the entirety of a gassing, to be removed afterwards.

I would appreciate a mod reviewing the above to ensure it is a true reflection of the discussion so far

[Nessie]

....

Markiewicz's work refuted the core arguments of Holocaust deniers:
He showed that the absence of Prussian blue does not mean cyanide was never used.

We do not know if Prussian blue never made any appearance on any wall of any of the gas chambers. The delousing chambers show that formation is not even and consistent. There are delousing chambers that show none at all. There could have been some, minimal formation and we do not see it because of the demolitions and at Krema I, various modification to the building.

"It should be added that this blue coloration does not appear on the walls of all the delousing rooms."

His methodology and conclusions were peer-reviewed and scientifically sound — unlike Leuchter or Rudolf.
His findings align with what chemistry actually predicts given the materials, usage patterns, and decades of degradation.

His findings also align with the evidence that gas chambers were built and operated inside the Kremas. Leuchter and Rudolf are not supported by any evidence of usage, indeed they do not try to evidence usage. They are also regularly contradicted by Holocaust revisionists, who claim that the gas chambers, evidenced to have been constructed inside the Kremas, were used for delousing.

[ConfusedJew]

I may seriously bet you at some point in the future, but let's get very clear on the nature of the disagreement first and then I'll see what we're dealing with.

Would that actually convince you, if we did a properly designed survey with random but reasonably intelligent strangers?

[HansHill]

I may seriously bet you at some point in the future, but let's get very clear on the nature of the disagreement first and then I'll see what we're dealing with.

Would that actually convince you, if we did a properly designed survey with random but reasonably intelligent strangers?

Now I am the confused one. What do strangers have to do with this? "Strangers" are hilariously under-equipped to deal with the Holocaust, let alone even comment on it. You can convince a stranger that Anne Frank was gassed with fake shower heads at Auschwitz.

This disagreement is about the methods of pellets either:

- staying inside the column, or
- falling out the bottom

being material or not. You breezed over my cautioning to you about this, and asserted this discrepancy is a "very tiny difference" and I'm "exaggerating it". Please re-read those exchanges if you didn't understand what your AI was outputting at the time, or if you are still confident I will DM you my Monero details.