Forensic Chemistry

[HansHill]

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.

He's still not getting it.

HCN is volatile (non-long term stable) when it is non-Iron bound (free associated). When it reacts with iron it is long-term stable. This is why we test for long term stable cyanide. IF IT WAS THERE IN 1943, IT WILL BE THERE TODAY due to its stability.

Free associated cyanide fucking wont.

Jesus christ.

YOU WROTE THIS:

While prussian blue is exceptionally stable, other cyanide residues wash out quickly. After five decades of rain, the only long‑lived chemical footprint likely to remain in exterior brickwork is Prussian blue.

Which is a VERY rare example of your AI getting something right. How are you still not getting this dude? My dog outside has not only gotten it already, but he's creating an account as we speak to try explain it to you.

[Stubble]

My dog outside has not only gotten it already, but he's creating an account as we speak to try explain it to you.

Pics or it didn't happen.

[ConfusedJew]

I get it. They still found free cyanide residue anyway. Prussian Blue was not expected to form due to the conditions of the chambers and usage of the cyanide. Like I said, we will get to that soon.

[HansHill]

I get it. They still found free cyanide residue anyway. Prussian Blue was not expected to form due to the conditions of the chambers and usage of the cyanide. Like I said, we will get to that soon.

So then explain what the purpose of Markiewicz 1994 was then - in your own words.

[HansHill]

My dog outside has not only gotten it already, but he's creating an account as we speak to try explain it to you.

Pics or it didn't happen.

[ConfusedJew]

I get it. They still found free cyanide residue anyway. Prussian Blue was not expected to form due to the conditions of the chambers and usage of the cyanide. Like I said, we will get to that soon.

So then explain what the purpose of Markiewicz 1994 was then - in your own words.

I don't like writing my own text anymore but it is a fair request.

The report was specifically written to refute certain claims from people who denied the Holocaust:

1. There was no significant presence of cyanide in the gas chambers which proves that they were not used to kill humans.
2. Only delousing chambers had high levels of cyanide usage.
3. The presence of Prussian Blue is required to prove that there were homicidal gassings. Turned around, the lack of Prussian Blue is proof that there were no homicidal gassings.
4. The design of the chamber and ventilation made it technically impossible to conduct mass killings with Zyklon B.
5. Any cyanide residues in the camp were from delousing due to the Typhoid epidemic.

Do you agree with any of those five claims above and if so, why? We can start to dissect each one of those point by point.

[Wahrheitssucher]

I get it…

So then explain what the purpose of Markiewicz 1994 was then — in your own words.

I don't like writing my own text anymore…

The report was specifically written to refute certain claims from people who denied the Holocaust…

Wow! CJ incredibly S T I L L hasn’t ‘got’ that people who doubt details of the mass-gassing narrative ARE NOT ‘denying the holocaust’.

[ConfusedJew]

Wow! CJ incredibly S T I L L hasn’t ‘got’ that people who doubt details of the mass-gassing narrative ARE NOT ‘denying the holocaust’.

The number of people murdered by gas during the Holocaust is generally estimated to be approximately 3 million, with the vast majority being Jewish victims.

If you are denying that, you are basically denying the Holocaust or at least a Holocaust doubter.

[HansHill]

I don't like writing my own text anymore but it is a fair request.

The report was specifically written to refute certain claims from people who denied the Holocaust:

1. There was no significant presence of cyanide in the gas chambers which proves that they were not used to kill humans.
2. Only delousing chambers had high levels of cyanide usage.
3. The presence of Prussian Blue is required to prove that there were homicidal gassings. Turned around, the lack of Prussian Blue is proof that there were no homicidal gassings.
4. The design of the chamber and ventilation made it technically impossible to conduct mass killings with Zyklon B.
5. Any cyanide residues in the camp were from delousing due to the Typhoid epidemic.

Do you agree with any of those five claims above and if so, why? We can start to dissect each one of those point by point.

1 - 4 are very strong arguments and map onto our current models and understanding of the chemistry and kinetics to a very large degree
5 is inconclusive

[ConfusedJew]

OK so we will debunk each of those 5 claims. I'll read through the most recent Markiewicz research report and get back to you. This is kind of where the forefront of the forensic chemistry debate.

If you found out that all 5 of those arguments were either false or very unlikely to be true, would you change your mind about this?

What you deem to be likely or unlikely is subjective, I may not be able to change that, but we can figure out why we disagree and then figure out why you think something is likely or not.

I used to work as a stock market investor where you are always operating uncertainty. Even though we like to think that science gives us the absolute truth, it is far more like investment analysis that nearly every scientist would like to think. The truly great scientists get that though but they are very rare.

[HansHill]

OK so we will debunk each of those 5 claims. I'll read through the most recent Markiewicz research report and get back to you. This is kind of where the forefront of the forensic chemistry debate.

If you found out that all 5 of those arguments were either false or very unlikely to be true, would you change your mind about this?

What you deem to be likely or unlikely is subjective, I may not be able to change that, but we can figure out why we disagree and then figure out why you think something is likely or not.

I used to work as a stock market investor where you are always operating uncertainty. Even though we like to think that science gives us the absolute truth, it is far more like investment analysis that nearly every scientist would like to think. The truly great scientists get that though but they are very rare.

With one caveat - if by "significant" you mean lethal then yes - if i found out that 1 - 4 were unsustainable or outright false, it would change the calculus.

5 as i said is inconclusive so it is largely context dependent.

[ConfusedJew]

OK so we will debunk each of those 5 claims. I'll read through the most recent Markiewicz research report and get back to you. This is kind of where the forefront of the forensic chemistry debate.

If you found out that all 5 of those arguments were either false or very unlikely to be true, would you change your mind about this?

What you deem to be likely or unlikely is subjective, I may not be able to change that, but we can figure out why we disagree and then figure out why you think something is likely or not.

I used to work as a stock market investor where you are always operating uncertainty. Even though we like to think that science gives us the absolute truth, it is far more like investment analysis that nearly every scientist would like to think. The truly great scientists get that though but they are very rare.

With one caveat - if by "significant" you mean lethal then yes - if i found out that 1 - 4 were unsustainable or outright false, it would change the calculus.

5 as i said is inconclusive so it is largely context dependent.

OK, so I am assuming this is the 1994 Markiewicz report? When I get a chance, I'll read through it myself and I'll turn off AI mode so that I respond only in my own language. I'll use AI to explain to me the scientific mechanisms and search for other sources of data, but other than that, I think we are pretty much on the same page regarding the chemistry.

https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... port.shtml

Auschwitz was not the only location where the Nazis supposedly used gassing to kill people of course but it is noted as being the most significant so we can start here and see where else this investigation may take us.

There still might be mistakes but don't freak out about it, just point it out and I'll correct course.

[HansHill]

OK, so I am assuming this is the 1994 Markiewicz report?
https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... port.shtml

What

We are 22 pages in and you are asking me if this is the report you have been defending all along?!



You're done Confused Jew. This is beyond embarrassing. I hope everything works out well for you in future, good luck with everything

[Stubble]

Holy shit. That's insane.

If I ever have to describe this thread to someone IRL, the only thing I will be able to do is offered a befuddled look, because I, have, no, words.

[Callafangers]

Is it just coincidence that ConfusedJew is, of course, Jewish, and that his behavior aligns incredibly well with common tropes about how Jews allegedly behave (tribal defense and defense of their narratives, truth be damned)?

I think this is definitely coincidence but I am sure some hateful haters out there might suggest otherwise.