Forensic Chemistry

[ConfusedJew]

I need some time to do more research on the sensitivities and techniques used with each study and will come back to this.

I guess I'm less interested in the physical logistics and mechanics because I feel like there's so much missing or hard to access information but the existence of the cyanide residues is much more black and white.

[HansHill]

You have a lot of work to do, and your attitude here has been disgraceful - a walking talking avatar of Dunning Krueger in motion.

Like I told you months ago, there are people here who are deeply familiar with this material, and have studied it for decades. There are hobbiests here, and professionals. There are also senior members here like Scott or Hektor or Borja who haven't even bothered posting, but i assume are lurking, because almost nothing you have said is insightful, new or novel. You are welcome if you take this seriously, but unfortunately this has not been the case so far, and so I doubt you will take this seriously going forward.

[ConfusedJew]

ChatGPT 5 has come out which is much better than the predecessor so I figured I'd revive this discussion as it is easier to go deeper with reliable information and arguments now.

You guys cherry pick survivor testimonies to find flaws which you claim discredits the whole source so why not do the same for the Holocaust denial "forensic" studies.

The Leuchter Report found o significant cyanide residues in Auschwitz gas chambers which has been used to argue that no gassings occurred. But the sampling was done inappropriately. Leuchter chipped out chunks of wall and ground entire pieces. Hydrogen cyanide penetrates only the surface millimeters of porous materials like brick. By grinding whole samples into powder, he massively diluted any surface cyanide with unaffected interior material. Can we agree that study should be thrown out entirely because of that?

[fireofice]

ChatGPT 5 has come out which is much better than the predecessor so I figured I'd revive this discussion as it is easier to go deeper with reliable information and arguments now.

You guys cherry pick survivor testimonies to find flaws which you claim discredits the whole source so why not do the same for the Holocaust denial "forensic" studies.

The Leuchter Report found o significant cyanide residues in Auschwitz gas chambers which has been used to argue that no gassings occurred. But the sampling was done inappropriately. Leuchter chipped out chunks of wall and ground entire pieces. Hydrogen cyanide penetrates only the surface millimeters of porous materials like brick. By grinding whole samples into powder, he massively diluted any surface cyanide with unaffected interior material. Can we agree that study should be thrown out entirely because of that?

Assessing witnesses and confirming or dismissing their testimony based on how credible they are isn't the same as the scientific method where mistakes get made. Mistakes get corrected, that's literally how the scientific method works. Whereas you can't "correct" witness testimony. It's already been made, so you have to deal with the testimony as is. The only question is whether any mistakes or errors in the testimony are fatal to the credibility of the witness or whether it's expected and/or not a big deal.

[Archie]

ChatGPT 5 has come out which is much better than the predecessor so I figured I'd revive this discussion as it is easier to go deeper with reliable information and arguments now.

Your AI copypasta approach has blown up in your face over and over. How have you still not learned your lesson? The LLMs are not very reliable on the minutiae of what we discuss here. You need to put in the time and read real sources. It is truly flabbergasting that you think GPT5 is the golden ticket. It's not.

Let me give you a preemptive warning here. You are responsible for everything you post on here and for all the claims you make. "Oops, i guess my AI hallucinated" is not going to cut it. You need to have proper sources available upon request.

[Stubble]

Fred's report was refined in the Rudolf report...

/shrug

In Germar's words, 'Fred Leuchter was a pioneer'.

Did he nail it out of the box in 2 weeks? Mostly. Are there some things in the report that needed to be refined? Yes, and they were. See 'The Chemistry of Auschwitz'.

https://holocausthandbooks.com/book/the ... auschwitz/





Note: I feel like the statement about 'The Leuchter Report' has been previously addressed in this thread. Likely on page one, perhaps in post #2. I'll check.

Looks like Page-11, Addressed by Mr Hill.

[ConfusedJew]

Assessing witnesses and confirming or dismissing their testimony based on how credible they are isn't the same as the scientific method where mistakes get made. Mistakes get corrected, that's literally how the scientific method works. Whereas you can't "correct" witness testimony. It's already been made, so you have to deal with the testimony as is. The only question is whether any mistakes or errors in the testimony are fatal to the credibility of the witness or whether it's expected and/or not a big deal.

OK so you admit that some mistakes are not fatal to the credibility of a witness. What do you think would fully undermine the credibility of a witness?

What do you think it would take to undermine an entire scientific study or a witness? In the case of Leuchter, you dont' totally rule it out even though it had serious methodological problems which is fine, but you should treat the witness testimony similarly in my opinion.

[ConfusedJew]

Fred's report was refined in the Rudolf report...

/shrug

In Germar's words, 'Fred Leuchter was a pioneer'.

Did he nail it out of the box in 2 weeks? Mostly. Are there some things in the report that needed to be refined? Yes, and they were. See 'The Chemistry of Auschwitz'.

https://holocausthandbooks.com/book/the ... auschwitz/

So in your opinion, does the Rudolf Report totally supersede the Leuchter report? The Rudolf report has plenty of methodological problems with it that many think totally discredit it. We can debate that out though.

[Stubble]

Likely previously linked, although, this being page 28, for posterity, I will leave this here;

https://codoh.com/library/document/some ... -birkenau/

Here you have it: Hate speech. Imputing that someone wants to rehabilitate the incarnation of evil on earth – and that is what National Socialism is in the eyes of the vast majority of all humans – and that he is using evil techniques for this purpose or, alternatively, that he is mentally ill or feeble-minded. In the long run, that sort of arguing drives us directly into mental asylums, prisons or onto pyres, a situation which unfortunately is no longer unlikely in Germany today.

https://codoh.com/library/document/character-assassins/

Jamie McCarthy quotes Dr. Ingrid Rimland and David Irving proof that Revisionists say chemistry is a science to prove or disprove the existence of homicidal gas chambers rigorously. He than quotes paragraphs of the conclusions of my report as published on the net which include chemical arguments, while omitting those that include technical and architectural arguments. Later he quotes the conclusions as I had written them in a paper presented roughly a year ago in Adelaide. He then constructs a contradiction between both conclusions by indicating that, in the latter conclusion, the word chemistry does not even exist:

https://codoh.com/library/document/dr-r ... -evasions/

The funny thing is that he then attacks me for having addressed the ad hominem attacks he and McCarthy made in their prior article “Chemistry is not the Science.” He calls them rhetorical and even a “war of attrition.” So if I defend myself against false personal accusations, I am the one to blame? Some of my remarks are, however, not rhetorical at all, but a matter of scientific methods. But the reader may judge this for himself.

For the record, not much has been leveled to 'impugn' 'The Rudolf Report', rather, character assassination and well poisoning has been used instead.

If you want to take on the report, feel free, I'd suggest you start by, reading your thread here.

I don't leave any of this here for you, as you don't read, rather, I leave it for the poor souls who will be subjected to this miscarriage of a thread you want to take into yet another circle. To save them some time.

[Nessie]

...
Assessing witnesses and confirming or dismissing their testimony based on how credible they are isn't the same as the scientific method where mistakes get made. Mistakes get corrected, that's literally how the scientific method works. Whereas you can't "correct" witness testimony. It's already been made, so you have to deal with the testimony as is. The only question is whether any mistakes or errors in the testimony are fatal to the credibility of the witness or whether it's expected and/or not a big deal.

There is a lot more science behind the assessment of witness evidence, than any so-called revisionist will ever know, or acknowledge. Numerous studies and experiments have been run, to assess memory and recall, so we know how accurate people are when recollecting details.

It is wrong of so-called revisionists to concentrate only on credibility. A witness can be highly credible and a complete liar and vice versa. Truthfulness and reliability are more important. Credibility is used by so-called revisionists, to claim 100% of the eyewitnesses were liars and the result is 0% of eyewitnesses who they believe. To get round that, people who were not eyewitnesses are presented as evidence, but they have been cherry-picked.

The way so-called revisionists assess witness evidence is a pathetic joke, so see through it is obvious, except to them.

[Nessie]

...

You guys cherry pick survivor testimonies to find flaws which you claim discredits the whole source so why not do the same for the Holocaust denial "forensic" studies.

The Leuchter Report found o significant cyanide residues in Auschwitz gas chambers which has been used to argue that no gassings occurred. But the sampling was done inappropriately. Leuchter chipped out chunks of wall and ground entire pieces. Hydrogen cyanide penetrates only the surface millimeters of porous materials like brick. By grinding whole samples into powder, he massively diluted any surface cyanide with unaffected interior material. Can we agree that study should be thrown out entirely because of that?

Good point.

[HansHill]

ChatGPT 5 has come out which is much better than the predecessor so I figured I'd revive this discussion as it is easier to go deeper with reliable information and arguments now.

You guys cherry pick survivor testimonies to find flaws which you claim discredits the whole source so why not do the same for the Holocaust denial "forensic" studies.

The Leuchter Report found o significant cyanide residues in Auschwitz gas chambers which has been used to argue that no gassings occurred. But the sampling was done inappropriately. Leuchter chipped out chunks of wall and ground entire pieces. Hydrogen cyanide penetrates only the surface millimeters of porous materials like brick. By grinding whole samples into powder, he massively diluted any surface cyanide with unaffected interior material. Can we agree that study should be thrown out entirely because of that?

1 - If My Robot Pal 5.0 has suddenly given you something interesting on the non-formation of cyanide compounds, please present them instead of pedantically wasting time

2 -

By grinding whole samples into powder, he massively diluted any surface cyanide with unaffected interior material

You don't know what you are talking about. Fred Leuchter didn't grind or dilute anything. The laboratory analysis including all technical and preparatory exercises were performed by the Alpha Analytic Laboratories as lead by Dr James Roth.

Dr Roth testified under oath at the Zundel trial that the analytic results stood on merit along best practices in the field at the time.

Roth testified that the test results indicated the following: sample 1 showed no detection; sample 2 showed no detection; sample 3 showed no detection; sample 4 showed no detection; sample 5 showed no detection; sample 5 duplicate test showed no detection; sample 6 showed no detection; sample 7 showed no detection; sample 7 spike recovery test indicated 119 percent; sample 8 showed no detection; sample 8 duplicate showed 1.9 milligrams per kilogram; sample 9 showed 6.7 milligrams per kilogram; sample 10 showed no detection; sample 11 showed no detection; sample 12 showed no detection; sample 13 showed no detection; sample 14 showed no detection; sample 15 showed 2.3 milligrams per kilogram; sample 16 showed 1.4 milligrams per kilogram; sample 16 spike recovery test indicated 96 percent; sample 17 showed no detection; sample 18 showed no detection; sample 18 spike recovery test indicated 100 percent; sample 19 showed no detection; sample 19 spike recovery test indicated 120 percent; sample 20 showed no detection; sample 20 duplicate showed 1.4 milligrams per kilogram; sample 21 showed 4.4 milligrams per kilogram; sample 22 showed 1.7 milligrams per kilogram; sample 23 showed no detection; sample 24 showed no detection; sample 25 showed 3.8 milligrams per kilogram; sample 25 duplicate showed 1.9 milligrams per kilogram; sample 26 showed 1.3 milligrams per kilogram; sample 26 spike recovery test indicated 140 percent; sample 27 showed 1.4 milligrams per kilogram; sample 28 showed 1.3 milligrams per kilogram; sample 29 showed 7.9 milligrams per kilogram; sample 30 showed 1.1 milligrams per kilogram; sample 30 duplicate showed no detection; sample 31 showed no detection; sample 32 showed 1,050 milligrams per kilogram. (33- 9278 to 9287) A bar graph of the sample results which Roth had examined and determined to accurately represent the test results was entered as Exhibit 154. (33-9288)

The tests were performed by taking a representative sample of the material that was received by the laboratory, placing it in a flask that could be sealed, adding a low concentration of acidic solution, specifically sulphuric acid, then warming the sample in that solution while in the process passing gas through it. Air passed through the solution and the acidic environment volatilized the cyanide and formed hydrogen cyanide gas. This gas was then passed through a solution of sodium hydroxide. Any hydrogen cyanide would react with the sodium hydroxide to form sodium cyanide. After a period of time required to assume complete removal of any cyanide in the sample, the solution was analysed colour metrically for the presence of cyanide. (33-9280)

This process was repeated with each of the samples, with duplicates on certain selected samples and with spot samples in which known amounts of cyanide were added to check recovery. Cyanide spike recovery tests performed on several of the samples all indicated that the analyses and the techniques and methods by which the samples were analyzed were valid. (33- 9281 to 9287)

3 - Yes there are some problems with the Leuchter report, however you hilariously are zoning into the wrong aspects. Some of the problems are material, and some are not. The problems considered material tend to be conclusionary in nature rather than procedural, for example where Leucther concludes that HcN is too combustible to be deployed in the vicinity of crematory furnaces, this is problematic because Leuchter failed to recognise the concentrations we are talking about are far below those which would be considered cobustible

As Mr Stubble rightly said, many of these problems (material or immaterial) are indeed tidied up by Rudolf where necessary, including as you alluded to here and has already been explained to you before, that Rudolf included depth profiling whereas Leucther did not.

4 - This is all relatively basic stuff that you don't know because you don't read source material, and My Robot Pal 5.0 is performing just as poorly as 4.0 and 3.0 and 2.0 by not explaining any of this to you.

[Callafangers]

4 - This is all relatively basic stuff that you don't know because you don't read source material, and My Robot Pal 5.0 is performing just as poorly as 4.0 and 3.0 and 2.0 by not explaining any of this to you.

CJ thought he'd finally show those deniers "what's what" now that a new ChatGPT came out.

Well, CJ, how is that going for you? Guess we'll wait for ChatGPT 6 or 7.

[Stubble]

I noticed something I found mildly comical going back over the thread.

Some time back, CJ responded to Mr Hill thus;

[quote=ConfusedJew post_id=14059 time=1754590529 user_id=263

Seems to me that you've got three options (assuming Wetzelrad or a Mod doesn't simply send you the figures again, that's up to them):

Option A: Believe Wetzelrad's argument above about the non-zero controls and seek out the information in this thread that has been provided to you by people who spent their valuable time to do so (me included).

Option B: Don't believe Wetzelrad's argument above about the non-zero controls and call him a liar (!)

Option C: Don't do anything / ignore all of this / follow some other random line of AI slop / continue about your business

None of those are particularly appealing to me, I guess option A is slightly preferable.... slightly? Not by much though, I'd say about 0.64ppm if i had to quantify it.

ChatGPT 5 is coming out today and will have significantly less hallucinations supposedly.

I don't accuse people of lying, even if I think they are, I will just demonstrate it by introducing whatever contradiction or impossibility that I find in their messages to sort it out more quickly. Ad hominem attacks general break down conversation.

I don't think he's misrepresenting the results. I am just not on top of the very important but small details of the studies. I would also expect different studies to have slightly different results as well for many good reasons.

At some point, I think he had a moment of clarity and realized that ChatGPT wasn't doing him any favors and decided he would knuckle down and do research.

I need some time to do more research on the sensitivities and techniques used with each study and will come back to this.

I guess I'm less interested in the physical logistics and mechanics because I feel like there's so much missing or hard to access information but the existence of the cyanide residues is much more black and white.

This was of course, short lived, as he returned with the intention to just shit out more AI slop like a [bleep].

[Admin note: extreme expletive, while hilarious, had to censor it to maintain some decency on the forum. While self-expression is often encouraged, let's try to keep it within reason.]

ChatGPT 5 has come out which is much better than the predecessor so I figured I'd revive this discussion as it is easier to go deeper with reliable information and arguments now.

You guys cherry pick survivor testimonies to find flaws which you claim discredits the whole source so why not do the same for the Holocaust denial "forensic" studies.

The Leuchter Report found o significant cyanide residues in Auschwitz gas chambers which has been used to argue that no gassings occurred. But the sampling was done inappropriately. Leuchter chipped out chunks of wall and ground entire pieces. Hydrogen cyanide penetrates only the surface millimeters of porous materials like brick. By grinding whole samples into powder, he massively diluted any surface cyanide with unaffected interior material. Can we agree that study should be thrown out entirely because of that?

Of course, he also touched on things already discussed IN THIS THREAD, but hey, who cares right? It's just a waste of time, and space...

/shrug

At least he has refrained from futher shitting up his thread I suppose.

[ConfusedJew]

1 - If My Robot Pal 5.0 has suddenly given you something interesting on the non-formation of cyanide compounds, please present them instead of pedantically wasting time

Sure but let me come back to that.

2 - You don't know what you are talking about. Fred Leuchter didn't grind or dilute anything. The laboratory analysis including all technical and preparatory exercises were performed by the Alpha Analytic Laboratories as lead by Dr James Roth.

Dr Roth testified under oath at the Zundel trial that the analytic results stood on merit along best practices in the field at the time.

From the following transcript:

"I don't think the Leuchter results have any meaning. There's nothing in any of our data that says those surfaces were exposed or not."

"You have to look at what happens to cyanide when it reacts with a wall. Where does it go? How far does it go? Cyanide is a surface reaction. It's probably not going to penetrate more than 10 microns. Human hair is 100 microns in diameter. Crush this sample up, I have just diluted that sample 10,000; 100,000 times. If you're going to go look for it, you're going to look on the surface only. There's no reason to go deep, because it's not going to be there. Which was the exposed surface? I didn't even have any idea. That's like analyzing paint on a wall by analyzing the timber that's behind it. If they go in with blinders on, they will see what they want to see. What was he really trying to do? What was he trying to prove?"

https://www.errolmorris.com/film/mrd_transcript.html

I think that pretty much destroys the Leuchter report so we can move on. If you disagree, why do you disagree?

3 - Yes there are some problems with the Leuchter report, however you hilariously are zoning into the wrong aspects. Some of the problems are material, and some are not. The problems considered material tend to be conclusionary in nature rather than procedural, for example where Leucther concludes that HcN is too combustible to be deployed in the vicinity of crematory furnaces, this is problematic because Leuchter failed to recognise the concentrations we are talking about are far below those which would be considered cobustible

As Mr Stubble rightly said, many of these problems (material or immaterial) are indeed tidied up by Rudolf where necessary, including as you alluded to here and has already been explained to you before, that Rudolf included depth profiling whereas Leucther did not.

OK, so can we agree that Leuchter's report should be totally ignored? Is there any evidence in there that you think is useful to advancing your argument. It seems like we agree that both the procedure and the conclusions were wrong. I'm willing to throw out that whole thing and move onto Rudolf unless you think there is some saving grace in the Leuchter report?

Rudolf's depth profiling still doesn’t address the basic scientific reality that cyanide doesn’t penetrate masonry deeply, so sampling in depth will always give “low” results. Since cyanide doesn’t penetrate more than a few microns, every layer below the surface will show nothing.