Forensic Chemistry

[Callafangers]

We argue it should be equal or slightly higher given the excess moisture caused by condensation from victims breathing.

Breathing, sweating, urinating, defecating, vomiting, bleeding, you name it. More humans + more panic = lots of moisture.

I don't need AI confused jew, in fact AI would be detrimental to my arguments because it will produce slop. I've been doing this some years, people like Callafangers, Nazgul, Hektor and Scott for decades, Archie and others are somewhat similar around a decade.

Gotta shout out to borjastick and Keen (Greg Gerdes?) as well. OGs for sure.

[HansHill]

I'm allowed to make mistakes, also you didn't explain it very well.

Fine if you didn't understand my arguments I'm used to it. But you aren't simply "making mistakes". As I've demonstrated above, and on prior pages - you actively accuse members of "acting in bad faith" when they are right, and just above you egregiously accused a mod of fabricating arguments, when he was right.

Honestly, I can't see it any other way than Confused Jew has continually broken forum rules, and is shadow-realmed.

[Stubble]

Again like above, according to the best known models of the kinetics and chemistry involved, yes it's formation is predicted under the conditions claimed. Its absence, while theoretically possible, would need to have been explained rigourously by now - and unfortunately its too late because people like you have made it illegal for the best minds to do so.

According to the authors of the Markowitz Study, the staining on the exterior of the delousing building (and the interior, but, for other reasons they claim), was paint. Because iron blue can't form on bricks in sunlight (it is like vampires I guess). This is of course, demonstrably false, just like a lot of other ridiculousness in there. That doesn't keep people from onboarding the study and actually taking it seriously, for some reason.

That the authors devoted time not to how iron blue forms, but, to making clumsy claims that it couldn't, is very telling to me. They even went so far as to claim it didn't form in the delousing chambers. After reading it, I can't stop laughing at it. It's just so ridiculous. I mean, we see it, it is physically there, and the authors expect us to believe them over our lying eyes.

https://www.nizkor.org/cracow-institute ... gy-part-i/

Brick, unlike other building materials, very feebly absorbs hydrogen cyanide, it sometimes does not even absorb it at all. Besides, iron occurring in it is at the third oxidation state, whereas bivalent iron ions are indispensable for the formation of the [Fe(Cn)6]-4 ion, which is the precursor of Prussian blue. This ion is, besides, sensitive to the sunlight.

**note** I understand Archie pointed this out months ago, I thought the paint thing was funny, but, I didn't bother reading their explanation before now, I spit out my coffee and fell out of my chair, then I couldn't stop laughing on my floor while rolling for a good 3 to 5 minutes.

[Stubble]

I'm allowed to make mistakes, also you didn't explain it very well.

Fine if you didn't understand my arguments I'm used to it. But you aren't simply "making mistakes". As I've demonstrated above, and on prior pages - you actively accuse members of "acting in bad faith" when they are right, and just above you egregiously accused a mod of fabricating arguments, when he was right.

Honestly, I can't see it any other way than Confused Jew has continually broken forum rules, and is shadow-realmed.

I'm actually in favor of suspension first. But, yes.

[ConfusedJew]

Referring to the Unz article: The study wasn't suppressed. There are many problems with the Unz article.

Here's what it gets right:

The Polish forensic investigation found that cyanide residue levels in the gas chambers at Auschwitz were significantly lower than those in delousing facilities. This discrepancy invites legitimate scientific inquiry into the chemical processes involved and highlights the importance of contextual factors (e.g., material composition, exposure duration, environmental degradation) when interpreting forensic evidence in historical settings.

What it gets wrong:

It falsely claims no cyanide was found in gas chambers. In reality, Polish scientists did find cyanide residues in the gas chambers, just at lower levels than in delousing rooms.

It suggests the Polish study confirmed Fred Leuchter’s claims. The Polish team actually rejected Leuchter’s methods as unscientific. Their findings contradicted his conclusion that gas chambers weren’t used for killing.

It implies that gas chambers and delousing rooms should have similar residue levels. That’s chemically false. Differences in exposure time, materials, and environmental conditions explain the variation.

It overemphasizes chemical traces as the only valid evidence but the existence of gas chambers is also supported by blueprints, SS records, eyewitnesses, and physical remains — not just chemistry. They later did more

It portrays the Polish report as a “leak” or cover-up. The study was published in a Polish forensic journal in 1994. It wasn’t suppressed — just not widely publicized or translated at the time.

Show me evidence of where it was leaked, not just some BS from Unz which is a website for conspiracy theories.

Like Unz, do you believe that COVID-19 was intentionally released or engineered by the U.S. military or intelligence agencies as a bioweapon?

Do you believe that the World Trade Center buildings were brought down not by planes, but by controlled demolition, orchestrated by the U.S. government or Israeli intelligence?

https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravd ... iowarfare/

https://www.unz.com/kbarrett/9-11-22-ye ... the-truth/

I don't want to spend so much time looking through low quality sources. Not only because they are unverified but also filled with a ton of false information.

[HansHill]

He's doubling down

Show me evidence of where it was leaked, not just some BS from Unz which is a website for conspiracy theories.

"I'd like to mention that the Management of the Museum did not inform us about the copying of this expert appraisal and its propagation." - Dr. Markiewicz to Mark Weber, June 7, 1991.

[Stubble]

He's doubling down

Show me evidence of where it was leaked, not just some BS from Unz which is a website for conspiracy theories.

"I'd like to mention that the Management of the Museum did not inform us about the copying of this expert appraisal and its propagation." - Dr. Markiewicz to Mark Weber, June 7, 1991.

He doesn't understand that in 1990 they looked for iron blue, didn't find it, and the report wasn't supposed to be published anywhere.

When they released in '94 after retooling the perimeters to get the results they wanted, the used 2 samples from the 1990 study (samples a I and II respectively) and so perhaps that's how he got the impression there was only 1 study.

It doesn't matter though, he is never going to actually read the article, he is going to ask AI to debunk anything you give him and he is going to post slop, without ever even using the wet mushy material between his ears.

You commended his IQ earlier in this thread, and it is my opinion, you should retract, because it is obvious you were hoodwinked.

Basically, the authors of the study needed to debunk Leuchter, they couldn't find iron blue, so, they had to contrive an explanation to exclude it, then, they used a contrived method to exclude it from the study.

Then, they measured ppb, and folks consider that 'proof of homicidal gassings'.

I still need to figure out what they did to their controls, maybe they tested them with a different threshold or something so they could mark them as 0. I'm not sure I will ever be able to look at precisely how they pulled off that bit of 'magic'. I assume fuckery.

[Keen]

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

That's what I wanted to do in our debate ( https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=409 ), but you cravenly refused to establish "a well organized starting point" and "a base level of understanding" and instead tucked tail and ran away.

Your hypocricy is duly noted jew.

[ConfusedJew]

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

That's what I wanted to do in our debate ( https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=409 ), but you cravenly refused to establish "a well organized starting point" and "a base level of understanding" and instead tucked tail and ran away.

Your hypocricy is duly noted jew.

This is rude and racist. I didn't have a well organized starting point at that time nor a base level of understanding. I am getting pretty close though. I must say I'm surprised at how much work has gone into this whole thing but there is a ton of groupthink and it has been a group effort over decades.

I don't even think I saw that post. I was busy for a couple weeks back around June and when I got back I had so many messages that I couldn't respond to all of them.

[ConfusedJew]

He's doubling down

Show me evidence of where it was leaked, not just some BS from Unz which is a website for conspiracy theories.

"I'd like to mention that the Management of the Museum did not inform us about the copying of this expert appraisal and its propagation." - Dr. Markiewicz to Mark Weber, June 7, 1991.

I need to see an original quotation of this because this doesn't present anything meaningful to me. A lot of these arguments are taken out of context and I need to see the full context to even know what he's saying.

[Keen]

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

That's what I wanted to do in our debate ( https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=409 ), but you cravenly refused to establish "a well organized starting point" and "a base level of understanding" and instead tucked tail and ran away.

Your hypocricy is duly noted jew.

This is rude and racist. I didn't have a well organized starting point at that time nor a base level of understanding. I am getting pretty close though. I must say I'm surprised at how much work has gone into this whole thing but there is a ton of groupthink and it has been a group effort over decades.

I don't even think I saw that post. I was busy for a couple weeks back around June and when I got back I had so many messages that I couldn't respond to all of them.

"rude and racist"

I don't want to derail this thread, but I couldn't help but notice and reply to the hypocricy.

Well confused chosen one, "now" that you are aware of our debate, I'll be waiting for you to start on our "well organized starting point" and "a base level of understanding" here:

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=409

and here:

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=13443#p13443

[Archie]

I wouldn't call it a cover up exactly, but more of a PR issue.

He didn't say it was a cover up!! Your AI hallucinated that. Here is what Archie said:

This has been replicated several times. The Polish chemists presumably replicated it as well but refused to publish it for obvious reasons.

This is true. Your AI then hallucinated this:

Claims of suppressed results are baseless

Your AI was wrong, and Archie was right.

Prior discussion of the leaked study here.
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=126

[Archie]

Referring to the Unz article: The study wasn't suppressed. There are many problems with the Unz article.

Here's what it gets right:

[...]

More AI garbage. Your research skills are nothing short of atrocious. That is not an "Unz article." The Unz site hosts a lot of periodical archives. That article is from the Journal of Historical Review from 1991, before the Unz site even existed. The JHR was the journal of the Institute for Historical Review, the main revisionist org in the 80s and 90s.

It portrays the Polish report as a “leak” or cover-up. The study was published in a Polish forensic journal in 1994. It wasn’t suppressed — just not widely publicized or translated at the time.

The leaked report is from 1990, bozo. The IHR article is clearly dated 1991. The Poles did their own tests in secret and initially refused to publish the results. It was only later in 1994 that they finally published something.

Show me evidence of where it was leaked, not just some BS from Unz which is a website for conspiracy theories.

Again, this has NOTHING to do with Unz.

There is a facsimile of the first page of the 1990 report from the Jan Sehn Institute. The IHR says they got it from a leaker. What are you arguing exactly? Are you claiming that the leaked report was a forgery by the IHR?

I don't want to spend so much time looking through low quality sources. Not only because they are unverified but also filled with a ton of false information.

Says the guy who places his full faith in unverified chatbot output filled with false information.

[ConfusedJew]

I don't have full faith in AI. It is just good enough for me to let you guys correct the mistakes that it makes and get there more quickly. The article was hosted by Unz, I think it is pedantic to argue that it was not an Unz article.

It's an overreach to say that the report was "suppressed". He deepened and widened the investigation before submitted it to peer review in order to correct the confusion that was caused. I guess it seems like it was potentially "leaked" but the IHR never said how they the preliminary data and saying it "leaked" ascribes intention.

"Now, in the light of letters and publications coming to us from different countries, I have arrived at the conclusion that our investigations aiming at the confirmation, if possible, of the use of cyanic preparations in the rooms that survived whole or only in the form of ruins, were rather preliminary in nature and incomplete. We are bent on widening and deepening these investigations and have already been preparing for them. It is only now when suitable materials from literature have become accessible to us that we see the purpose and sense of such studies. Naturally, we shall publish their results and make them accessible to you and your Institute."

The IHR responded:

"As Dr. Markiewicz mentions — and as Dr. Faurisson and others have repeatedly stressed — hydrogen cyanide is indeed a volatile substance. However, this point is not directly relevant to the investigations conducted by Leuchter or the Krakow Institute. In contrast to the volatility of hydrogen cyanide, the ferro-ferric-cyanide compounds (“Prussian blue”) produced as a result of the interaction of hydrogen cyanide and iron are remarkably stable, as authoritative chemistry reference works confirm."

This is scientifically misleading and inaccurate. It is and was relevant that HCN was a volatile substance which would explain why not much HCN would have been detected after use. The fact that Prussian blue is remarkably stable is only relevant if it were ever produced in the first place. We will get to that more specifically later.

[Wahrheitssucher]

Why did 100% of the testimonies (living and written) from the Sonderkommando testify to the existence and operations of the gas chambers?

Holocaust Denial:
The radical notion that the people who lied about human soap, human-skin lampshades, shrunken heads, steam chambers, electric floors, rollercoasters of death, anus gas pumps, and the peddle-driven brain-bashing machine aren't telling the truth about death showers.

Brilliant!