Forensic Chemistry

[bombsaway]

If I collect 60+ samples, but, I only include 50+ samples, that indicates that I selected my preferred samples from the pool rather than publishing a complete set.

How you are incapable of comprehending that is another matter all together. I'm not even going to attempt to address it, as I can not do so while providing the benefit of charity.

I mean that wasn't really clear from your post but I'll proceed

Missing Sample Analysis
Let me trace through all sample numbers systematically:
Samples Listed in Study:
Table IV (Delousing): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 53, 53a, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
Table I (Controls): 9, 10, 11, 12, 60, 61, 62, 63
Table II (Block 11): 13, 14, 15
Table III (Gas Chambers): 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52
Reference Sample: 24 (Zyklon B component)
Missing Sample Numbers:
Sample 16 - Gap between Block 11 samples (15) and Crematorium I (17)
Sample 23 - Gap between Crematorium I (22) and reference sample (24)
Samples 44, 45 - Gap between Crematorium IV (43) and Crematorium V (46)
Total Missing: 4 samples (16, 23, 44, 45)

So all the control samples are listed, otherwise there aren't any values in the missing segments that change the overall calculus, 'control samples feature no HCN, gas chambers do'

here are possible reasons for the missing values other than "fuckery"

Clerical Error: This is the most common reason for such gaps. In the process of documenting, transcribing notes, and compiling tables for publication, a number could easily be skipped or a typo could be made. Remember, the text notes it was edited for the web, which introduces another step where an error could occur.

Sample Was Unusable: The samples might have been collected but were subsequently discarded for a valid technical reason. For example, a sample could have been contaminated during collection or in the lab, the container could have been damaged, or the amount of material might have been insufficient for the multiple analyses the lab was performing. In such cases, the data for that sample is simply omitted.

Sample Used for Other Tests: It's possible those specific samples were used for a different type of analysis that was not included in this particular paper.

The problem with you Stubble, and all other revisionists, is that you can only view the subject through a particular lens. Ultimately the proof of fuckery is not anything in the study, rather this is an extrapolation from your other conclusions. Similar thing with the archeological studies, like the apparently huge amounts of ash found at at T2 which you claimed was a lie

[Stubble]

Notice, you aren't paying attention to the sample numbers of the control, you have samples numbered in excess of 60. The report contains around 50.

That's not 4 missing samples.

Take Treblinka stuff to a Treblinka thread.

I'm going to work on not responding to rage bait. I will start here, today.

[bombsaway]

Notice, you aren't paying attention to the sample numbers of the control, you have samples numbered in excess of 60. The report contains around 50.

That's not 4 missing samples.

Take Treblinka stuff to a Treblinka thread.

I'm going to work on not responding to rage bait. I will start here, today.

Which ones are missing in addition to those 4 listed by the LLM

I'm not trying to rage bait, just stating why you haven't proven fuckery

[ConfusedJew]

I'm really concerned about the cyanide residue (non trace amounts) found in the gas chambers. Nobody can concisely or clearly or compellingly explain to me how that got there without there being the deployment of homicidal cyanide.

ConfusedJew, was cyanide ever used as a fumigant at Auschwitz-Birkenau? Would this have been used in the various facilities, including barracks, morgues, and other facilities? Or is there reason to suppose it wouldn't have been used in a morgue, where lice-infested corpses (and their clothing, other materials) were stored?

Do the traces found better support the known camp fumigation efforts, or a 80+ hour exposure to repeated 'gassings'?

And why do you call it a 'gas chamber'? It seems you have failed establishing it as such, so seems premature or agenda-driven for you to use this term regardless.

Zyklon B was used in barracks and delousing facilities, but its use in morgues for fumigation is unlikely and unsupported by evidence, especially for lice-infested corpses or their clothing. Morgues, like Leichenkeller 1 in Krema II, were designed to store corpses temporarily before cremation, not to disinfect them. There is no documentary or testimonial evidence from Auschwitz indicating Zyklon B was used to fumigate corpses in morgues. Corpses were typically stripped of clothing before storage, and lice-infested clothing was sent to delousing facilities, not treated in morgues.

The low amounts better support the repeated gassings, not the fumigation efforts.

[Stubble]

Notice, you aren't paying attention to the sample numbers of the control, you have samples numbered in excess of 60. The report contains around 50.

That's not 4 missing samples.

Take Treblinka stuff to a Treblinka thread.

I'm going to work on not responding to rage bait. I will start here, today.

Which ones are missing in addition to those 4 listed by the LLM

I'm not trying to rage bait, just stating why you haven't proven fuckery

Going back through the tables, 16 is there. I misestimated earlier. There are indeed (4) samples missing.

Respectively these samples are;

23,24,44, and 45.

That the number of missing samples is above (0) is problematic.

I hate to he a bother Bombsaway, but, can you settle something for me? On any of the blueprints of Kremas II and III, is there drawn, a 'zyklon-B delivery hole'? I'd, uh, hate to think I missed it. I keep getting told that there is, also, a source is not forthcoming.

Perhaps you could let me know if it is on a blueprint that I have missed. If you would be so kind.

[bombsaway]

That the number of missing samples is above (0) is problematic.

Sure but again but this doesn't mean they were "ignoring" positive results. None of those missing samples comes from the control set. You just seem to have an attachment to the conclusion of no HCN in the morgues, even other revisionists in this thread seem to concede there was, attributing it to things other than homicidal gassing, like fumigation of corpses. Non-evidenced, but ok.

I haven't looked into the holes issue.

[Stubble]

I haven't looked into the holes issue.

I strongly doubt that.

Regarding the samples, perhaps it is my bias bleeding through, but, missing samples, for some reason, doesn't scream 'transparency' and 'honesty' to me.

There's also the original, suppressed, Krakow study to consider. Then the Leuchter, Mattogno, Ball and Rudolf results.

You can just shrug that off, and missing samples, and call me bias though, I guess.

[bombsaway]

I haven't looked into the holes issue.

I strongly doubt that.

Regarding the samples, perhaps it is my bias bleeding through, but, missing samples, for some reason, doesn't scream 'transparency' and 'honesty' to me.

There's also the original, suppressed, Krakow study to consider. Then the Leuchter, Mattogno, Ball and Rudolf results.

You can just shrug that off, and missing samples, and call me bias though, I guess.

You can believe me or not, it's ancillary to the studies though. Again I know you disbelieve based on other things, circular logic methinks, but whatever, this is just meta commentary about why revisionists are so kooky.

tell me more about the "suppressed" Cracow study,

there's additional findings here which also show higher HCN than in the controls https://www.nizkor.org/the-techniques-o ... -research/

[Stubble]

tell me more about the "suppressed" Cracow study,

there's additional findings here which also show higher HCN than in the controls https://www.nizkor.org/the-techniques-o ... -research/

Linked by Mr Hill earlier, obviously missed.

The 1990 Krakow Study was indeed obfuscated from public knowledge, and only became public when a staff member leaked it to the IHR.

SOURCE: https://www.historiography-project.com/ ... _Staff.php

"Although neither the Auschwitz State Museum nor the Krakow Institute has (so far) made this September 1990 report public, revisionists were nevertheless able to obtain a copy of the original document."

I'll read your Nizkor link.

For the record, Bombsaway;

[...] I'm not trying to rage bait [...]

Also Bombsaway;

[...] Again I know you disbelieve based on other things, circular logic methinks, but whatever, this is just meta commentary about why revisionists are so kooky. [...]

[Callafangers]

Zyklon B was used in barracks and delousing facilities, but its use in morgues for fumigation is unlikely and unsupported by evidence, especially for lice-infested corpses or their clothing. Morgues, like Leichenkeller 1 in Krema II, were designed to store corpses temporarily before cremation, not to disinfect them. There is no documentary or testimonial evidence from Auschwitz indicating Zyklon B was used to fumigate corpses in morgues. Corpses were typically stripped of clothing before storage, and lice-infested clothing was sent to delousing facilities, not treated in morgues.

The low amounts better support the repeated gassings, not the fumigation efforts.

Disinfestation applied to the entire Auschwitz-Birkenau facility, anywhere lice could be found or spread. There is no reason to presume morgues (nor any building where people occupy, work, or inhabit) would be excluded. You're copy-pasting more ChatGPT, it seems, and ChatGPT is again hallucinating non-existent "facts".

You're also forgetting that the Sonderkommando were allegedly housed on-site, justifying the need for their building to be fumigated as with the barracks or anywhere people were housed.

Do you care to support ChatGPT's position that all corpses were fully stripped of clothing before ever arriving at the morgue? Not that this changes the fact that corpses, themselves, carried lice into this facility, thus warranting fumigation as with every other building on-site.

[ConfusedJew]

Zyklon B was used in barracks and delousing facilities, but its use in morgues for fumigation is unlikely and unsupported by evidence, especially for lice-infested corpses or their clothing. Morgues, like Leichenkeller 1 in Krema II, were designed to store corpses temporarily before cremation, not to disinfect them. There is no documentary or testimonial evidence from Auschwitz indicating Zyklon B was used to fumigate corpses in morgues. Corpses were typically stripped of clothing before storage, and lice-infested clothing was sent to delousing facilities, not treated in morgues.

The low amounts better support the repeated gassings, not the fumigation efforts.

Disinfestation applied to the entire Auschwitz-Birkenau facility, anywhere lice could be found or spread. There is no reason to presume morgues (nor any building where people occupy, work, or inhabit) would be excluded. You're copy-pasting more ChatGPT, it seems, and ChatGPT is again hallucinating non-existent "facts".

You're also forgetting that the Sonderkommando were allegedly housed on-site, justifying the need for their building to be fumigated as with the barracks or anywhere people were housed.

Do you care to support ChatGPT's position that all corpses were fully stripped of clothing before ever arriving at the morgue? Not that this changes the fact that corpses, themselves, carried lice into this facility, thus warranting fumigation as with every other building on-site.

The idea that all buildings were routinely fumigated simply because they could harbor lice is not a conclusion supported by documentation—especially not in the case of morgues, particularly Leichenkeller 1 and 2 in Crematoria II and III. Morgues were not regularly inhabited by living people.

There is no documented routine disinfestation schedule for the crematoria morgues, and certainly no technical design indicating routine fumigation for pest control purposes.

The design of Leichenkeller 1 (used as a gas chamber) had no heating or ventilation system sufficient for safe Zyklon B disinfestation, unlike actual disinfestation chambers.

Fumigating a morgue that was regularly used for corpse storage, especially if already in operation as a gas chamber, would pose serious logistical and toxicological issues—as Zyklon B gas residues were extremely dangerous.

It is entirely plausible and documented that the Sonderkommando barracks was disinfested, as with other prisoner barracks. That doesn’t imply that the adjacent crematorium morgues were similarly deloused as a routine hygiene practice.

In most extermination operations, victims were forced to undress before entering the gas chambers, especially in Crematoria II and III, where the undressing room (Leichenkeller 2) was explicitly designed for this purpose.

The clothing was then collected and often sent for disinfestation, which indicates the de-lousing was not done in the morgues but rather as a post-processing step for salvaging belongings.

While corpses could still harbor lice, the primary risk was in living people and their clothing—this is where infestation spreads. Corpses are dead-end hosts for lice—they do not spread infestation the way live bodies do.

The presence of corpses, while theoretically a vector, was not treated as a disinfestation priority compared to clothing or living quarters.

[Stubble]

Believe it or not, the primary risk, was lice. Granted, people infected with typhus were a vector, but, they had to infect lice that infected other people.

So yes, transfer of lice from the dead to the LK was a risk. Because, they would be seeking new hosts, and obviously carried typhus.

[Callafangers]

The idea that all buildings were routinely fumigated simply because they could harbor lice is not a conclusion supported by documentation—especially not in the case of morgues, particularly Leichenkeller 1 and 2 in Crematoria II and III. Morgues were not regularly inhabited by living people.

What in the fuck is this? No one disputes the Sonderkommando worked at the building we are debating about (morgue vs. 'gas chamber'). That means people regularly worked in and inhabited this facility. ChatGPT keeps failing you.

There is no documented routine disinfestation schedule for the crematoria morgues, and certainly no technical design indicating routine fumigation for pest control purposes.

Do you have this precise schedule for the other areas you would concede were probably fumigated? If not, why would you make this point?

Oh, wait... you didn't make this point, it's just more AI slop.

The design of Leichenkeller 1 (used as a gas chamber) had no heating or ventilation system sufficient for safe Zyklon B disinfestation, unlike actual disinfestation chambers.

WTF is this?!! The barracks didn't either, ConfusedJew. You've gone full-AI-spamming at this point. You don't even read what you're writing at all.

Fumigating a morgue that was regularly used for corpse storage, especially if already in operation as a gas chamber, would pose serious logistical and toxicological issues—as Zyklon B gas residues were extremely dangerous.

Again, WTF.

It is entirely plausible and documented that the Sonderkommando barracks was disinfested, as with other prisoner barracks. That doesn’t imply that the adjacent crematorium morgues were similarly deloused as a routine hygiene practice.

Got it, so despite the fumigator already being present, and despite corpses with lice on them right next door (in the same building), they'd decide, "no reason to fumigate the morgue, because reasons."

Just brilliant.

In most extermination operations, victims were forced to undress before entering the gas chambers, especially in Crematoria II and III, where the undressing room (Leichenkeller 2) was explicitly designed for this purpose.

Affirming the consequent, your narrative isn't proven and therefore this is meaningless.

The clothing was then collected and often sent for disinfestation, which indicates the de-lousing was not done in the morgues but rather as a post-processing step for salvaging belongings.

None of this is documented. Your AI is talking right out of your ass.

While corpses could still harbor lice, the primary risk was in living people and their clothing—this is where infestation spreads. Corpses are dead-end hosts for lice—they do not spread infestation the way live bodies do.

No shit. Strange that you (ChatGPT) think that clothing and other materials should be deloused based on risk of spreading to other living humans, but corpses and their infested head and body hair (just as capable of spreading lice) should not.

The presence of corpses, while theoretically a vector, was not treated as a disinfestation priority compared to clothing or living quarters.

A conclusion you support with absolute-zero evidence. But I enjoy how you say it, great confidence. Cheers.

[Wetzelrad]

The design of Leichenkeller 1 (used as a gas chamber) had no heating or ventilation system sufficient for safe Zyklon B disinfestation, unlike actual disinfestation chambers.

Great stuff. I guess it was impossible then. Now let's see how that affects their supposed implementation as gas chambers.

Fumigating a morgue that was regularly used for corpse storage, especially if already in operation as a gas chamber, would pose serious logistical and toxicological issues—as Zyklon B gas residues were extremely dangerous.

Well, it's a good thing they didn't use that deadly gas in the gas chamber!

What in the fuck is this?

It's typical AI behavior. Defending the Holocaust is more important than coherence or common sense.

[Wahrheitssucher]

I'm not sure why it keeps making that mistake and ChatGPT annoyingly denies it but it's not that big of a deal.

It is a big deal.

You keep Gish-galloping this forum with new redundant threads and AI content that you yourself are not even reading/absorbing before you click submit.

It betrays that you are out of your depth.

If you are “confused” and “just want to see why revisionists believe what they believe,” you’d be in study/analysis mode, and not in debate club-style PR narrative control mode.

Precisely.