Roth testified that in order to have Prussian blue, iron must be present and accessible to the cyanide. (33-9301) He agreed that the presence of Prussian blue almost guaranteed that the ferri-cyanide complex was present. (33-9302) How deep Prussian blue would penetrate was totally dependent on many factors, such as the porosity of material and what moisture existed in the area. (33-9303) Asked if a building was blown up with dynamite and the surface blown off, the Prussian blue might thereby be removed, Roth replied that if just the surface was removed and the rest of the material was left, the answer would be yes. The Crown stated this was not what was suggested; the suggestion was that in an explosion the surface of the brick would come off. Roth replied that normally bricks would break up. "Now, if that's removal of the surface, yes." (33-9304)
If no one beats me to it, I will pull the whole trial minutes for Prof Roth later.
I don't want to just let the garbage posted by CJ stand as it is not representative of reality and is just complete bullshit pulled from his ass.
If I were to guess why no t4 personnel were chosen to perform gassing that had experience with gassing, it would be because THERE WERE NONE.
Is the suggestion that a block of concrete would be thoroughly diffused with cyanide? Or that the cyanide might penetrate via cracks, but would not achieve high average concentration?
Stubble wrote: ↑Fri Sep 26, 2025 9:53 pm
If no one beats me to it, I will pull the whole trial minutes for Prof Roth later.
I don't want to just let the garbage posted by CJ stand as it is not representative of reality and is just complete bullshit pulled from his ass.
This is a basic reading comprehension issue Mr. Stubble. He's talking about Prussian Blue which is very different from the gas. HansHill knows that but many of you don't seem to understand that.
Roth testified that in order to have Prussian blue, iron must be present and accessible to the cyanide. (33-9301) He agreed that the presence of Prussian blue almost guaranteed that the ferri-cyanide complex was present. (33-9302) How deep Prussian blue would penetrate was totally dependent on many factors, such as the porosity of material and what moisture existed in the area. (33-9303) Asked if a building was blown up with dynamite and the surface blown off, the Prussian blue might thereby be removed, Roth replied that if just the surface was removed and the rest of the material was left, the answer would be yes. The Crown stated this was not what was suggested; the suggestion was that in an explosion the surface of the brick would come off. Roth replied that normally bricks would break up. "Now, if that's removal of the surface, yes." (33-9304)
If no one beats me to it, I will pull the whole trial minutes for Prof Roth later.
I don't want to just let the garbage posted by CJ stand as it is not representative of reality and is just complete bullshit pulled from his ass.
Comprehend that? I'll grant that the fellow should have used the term 'propagate' not 'penetrate', but, he didn't. He isn't talking about formed iron blue 'migrating' into the wall.
Furthermore, square any of your arguments thus far with Krema I.
ConfusedJew wrote: ↑Thu Sep 25, 2025 4:24 am
You're not responding to what I said but I'll address that anyway.
A photo of staining does not prove gas penetration. Blue staining can result from local chemical reactions, contamination, or later environmental effects (e.g. moisture carrying soluble compounds through the wall). The mere presence of discoloration does not demonstrate HCN “mobility” across walls.
The problem with the Leuchter report was that he didn't find HCN but the samples he collected were very diluted.
If you look for things where they're not supposed to be, you won't find them. If you look for things that aren't supposed to be there, you also will find nothing.
I'm sorry, what? How, exactly, do you think that iron blue formed on the other side of the wall?
I also need to ask, what, exactly, is the retardant that prevents formation of iron blue below some unspecified depth of 'surface'?
For clarity and continuity, can you tell me what exactly is going to prevent hydrogen cyanide gas from permeating concrete, brick, mortar or plaster?
𝕭𝖊 𝕻𝖗𝖊𝖈𝖎𝖘𝖊.
If I were to guess why no t4 personnel were chosen to perform gassing that had experience with gassing, it would be because THERE WERE NONE.
ConfusedJew wrote: ↑Fri Sep 26, 2025 5:46 pm
Do you guys know what cherry picking is or why this applies to what you are doing?
Maybe you found some errors or mistakes or ambiguities or gaps in what people like Dr. Roth, Dr. Green, Dr. Markiewicz, Dr. George Wellers, and Dr. Jamie McCarthy have said, as they are human, but it might not be material to their overall arguments.
Robert Jan van Pelt and Jean-Claude Pressac have both criticized Rudolf's methodology and conclusions.
While they aren't credentialed chemists, like Rudolf, their methods were credible as they didn't rely on a single line of evidence (as did Rudolf) and integrated chemistry, engineering, architecture, documents, and testimony.
Both published detailed, referenced works that historians and scientists could critique in contrast to Rudolf’s work which is largely circulated in revisionist channels and avoids peer-review venues.
Both of their arguments align with mainstream chemistry, not exceptionalist interpretations. Instead of acknowledging the convergence of historical, architectural, and testimonial evidence, Rudolf claimed chemistry alone should carry an extraordinary evidentiary weight. He carved chemistry out as an “exceptional arbiter,” ignoring how science normally works (multiple converging methods, not one test ruling all).
Beyond that, several courts reviewed the scientific evidence and determined that his approaches were not legitimate. While courts don’t do original science themselves, they do evaluate whether scientific claims are credible, methodologically sound, and relevant. How did several court processes fail? I'm not saying that it's impossible, because courts make mistakes all the time, but you should have a good explanation of that if you want to be taken seriously by the mainstream.
I am curious to know how you arrived at these confident opinions given that you proudly admit that you do not read.
"While they aren't credentialed chemists, like Rudolf, their methods were credible as they didn't rely on a single line of evidence (as did Rudolf) and integrated chemistry, engineering, architecture, documents, and testimony."
Can you please justify your suggestion here that Rudolf relies on "a single line of evidence"?
Rudolf has written on a wide variety of Holocaust-related topics, way beyond just chemistry, and has edited dozens of books by others. He wrote nearly all of the Holocaust Encyclopedia by himself. https://holocaustencyclopedia.com/
"Both of their arguments align with mainstream chemistry, not exceptionalist interpretations. Instead of acknowledging the convergence of historical, architectural, and testimonial evidence, Rudolf claimed chemistry alone should carry an extraordinary evidentiary weight. He carved chemistry out as an “exceptional arbiter,” ignoring how science normally works (multiple converging methods, not one test ruling all)."
Please cite some specific examples from Rudolf's work where he deviates from mainstream chemistry. And please explain what non-standard "exceptionalist interpretations" of chemistry he embraces.
Can you please quote where Rudolf has said that "chemistry alone should carry extraordinary evidentiary weight"? What is your basis for this statement? Again, I am very curious about this since I know you have not read much of anything Rudolf has written.
Can you provide a citation for where you got the phrase "exceptional arbiter" from, which you have placed in quotes?
Since the opinions expressed in your post above cannot be based on your personal acquaintance with the texts in question, I am going to have to demand that you disclose the exact sources you relied on.
I put all the primary documents that I could find regarding the chemistry into a walled off project and told it to only look directly at those source documents so this should hopefully result in much more precision.
Holocaust deniers like Leuchter, Lüftl, and Rudolf argue that chemistry proves Auschwitz could not have been used for mass gassings. They point to three main things: allegedly low cyanide residues in crematoria walls, the absence of blue staining (Prussian blue), and supposed engineering problems with ventilation and sealing.
Cyanide residues
The Kraków forensic laboratory tested walls from Auschwitz. They found cyanide compounds in both the delousing chambers and the ruins of the crematoria, while none were present in ordinary camp buildings. That undercuts the deniers’ claim that no cyanide was used in the gas chambers. The amounts were different: very high in delousing rooms, lower in the crematoria. But that is exactly what would be expected. To kill lice and their eggs, fumigation required extremely high concentrations of Zyklon B over 24 hours or more. To kill people, lethal concentrations were reached in minutes, and exposure lasted perhaps 20 minutes. Short, lower-dose use leaves less residue.
Weathering
The crematoria were blown up at the end of the war, and the ruins have sat outside for decades. The Kraków scientists noted that the porous bricks and mortar had been rinsed by the equivalent of tens of meters of rainfall. Soluble cyanide compounds leach out over time. So again, lower readings in ruins are not evidence of non-use but a predictable result of exposure.
Prussian blue
The deniers point out that the delousing chambers have blue staining on the walls, while the crematoria do not. Chemist Richard Green explained why this is a bad argument. Prussian blue only forms when cyanide reacts with iron compounds in the walls under alkaline conditions, and when gas exposure is long and repeated. Delousing chambers met those conditions: long exposures, lots of gas, and walls suited to forming iron-cyanide complexes. The crematoria did not: exposures were short, concentrations lower, and mortars often acidic. Under those conditions, Prussian blue simply doesn’t form or persist. So the absence of blue stains tells us nothing about whether gassing took place.
Green called the Leuchter, Lüftl, and Rudolf reports pseudo-science. They treated the absence of Prussian blue as proof of no gassing without considering the chemistry of its formation. They compared high residues from delousing chambers with low residues from homicidal chambers as if the two should be equal, ignoring the different purposes and exposures. And they used poor methods: Leuchter, for example, scraped random samples from ruins, then had them tested in a way unsuitable for detecting faint cyanide traces in masonry. Even Dr. James Roth, the chemist who did Leuchter’s lab analysis, later testified that cyanide only penetrates the thickness of a human hair into brick or plaster, so Leuchter’s bulk samples would have diluted any trace into invisibility. That is why his negative results were meaningless.
When faced with the rebuttals, deniers try to (1) dismiss the science as “political,” (2) oversimplify chemistry (falsely arguing that all exposures should look identical), or (3) cherry-pick quotes (like Roth) out of context. None of these stand up once you understand the chemistry of exposure times, material conditions, and sampling methods.
Now that we've established the frontier, I'm sure you'll try to discredit Green, Krakow, and the court process which have resoundingly rejected all denier arguments so you need to debunk those core arguments. A lot of times you guys cherry pick minor details but don't address the actual core arguments. I've trained GPT to specifically look at those source documents so if you introduce new arguments, explain the argument very clearly based on scientific evidence and logic or at least provide a direct source so that I can put that into my project folder.
All major technical assertions (residues, Prussian blue, ventilation, feasibility) have clear, coherent explanations backed by lab data, standard chemistry, and trial-tested expert reports. Courts, forensic labs, and chemists are unanimous in agreeing that Leuchter, Lüftl, and Rudolf’s work is invalid.
There are tiny residual “gaps” in the science, not in the evidence but in the impossibility of creating the perfect experiment design. This will always be the case as there is always a degree of uncertainty in science.
These results have not been reproduced under a recreated controlled lab simulation with full-scale chamber conditions (short, high-dose Zyklon-B gassings in concrete/mortar of identical chemistry). This is obvious for ethical reasons.
The precise kinetics of Prussian blue formation have not been experimentally measured. The rate of ferrocyanide formation in historical mortars (with variable pH, iron content, and porosity) is complex. It’s understood in principle, but not measured for each Auschwitz chamber’s specific materials.
There is imprecision with measuring the weathering effects over decades. Outdoor ruins were exposed to rain, frost, and erosion. While it’s clear weathering reduces residues, the exact quantitative effect on every sample is uncertain. Again, the relative pattern still holds, which is what matters.
Science never gives 100% metaphysical certainty, it can only offer converging probabilities. Holocaust deniers sometimes exploit this by demanding absolute proof in the chemistry alone. To actually seek truth, it is illogical to demand the perfect "smoking gun", and you have to holistically look at separate forms of converging evidence.
This user continues to regress, post blatant falsehoods, re-visit debunked arguments, shows no signs of integrity, honesty or intelligence or good-faith despite numerous warnings and 1 temporary ban.
This user continues to regress, post blatant falsehoods, re-visit debunked arguments, shows no signs of integrity, honesty or intelligence or good-faith despite numerous warnings and 1 temporary ban.
Call for the user to be banned permanently.
This comes from the Lipstadt judgment. The LLM referenced the original source and mixed up low acidity with high acidity. It's very typical of holocaust deniers to nitpick tiny inaccuracies and blow them out of proportion while ignoring the actual arguments that were not made. If anything is a sign of glaring bad faith, that kind of behavior would be it.
7.74 Markiewicz decided that the so-called Prussian blue test was unreliable because its formation depended on the acidity of the environment which was particularly low in the alleged gas chambers. Markiewicz and his team therefore adopted
microdiffusion techniques to test for cyanide samples from the Crematoria, from the delousing chambers and a control sample taken from elsewhere within Auschwitz. The latter was tested because claims had been made that the cyanide traces in the gas chambers were explained by the fact that a single fumigation of the whole camp had taken place during the typhus epidemic. The control sample tested negative, refuting those claims.
As to the tests on the Crematoria and the delousing chambers, the conclusion arrived at by Markiewicz was that cyanide compounds are still to be found in all the facilities (that is, in both the delousing chambers and in the various supposed gas chambers) that, according to the source data, were in contact with cyanide. The concentration of cyanide compounds in the various samples varies greatly, even in the case of different samples taken from the same chamber or building. This indicated that the conditions producing the cyanide compounds varied locally. According to Van Pelt, the Markiewicz report demonstrated positively that Zyklon-B had been introduced into the supposed gas chambers, albeit that the test results varied greatly. Van Pelt considered that the results for Crematoria IV and V were unreliable because they had been demolished at the end of the war with the result that it is difficult to know which brick came from where.
Unless I am misreading the room, Archie has this under control. Unless I am mistaken, CJ will soon receive a temp (or perhaps a permanent) ban for dodging/evasion.
If I were to guess why no t4 personnel were chosen to perform gassing that had experience with gassing, it would be because THERE WERE NONE.
"The revisionists focussed their attention almost exclusively on Prussian blue, which is of intense dark-blue colour and characterized by exceptional fastness. This dye occurs, especially in the form of stains, on the outer bricks of the walls of the former bath/delousing house in the area of the Birkenau camp. It is hard to imagine the chemical reactions and physicochemical processes that could have led to the formation of Prussian blue in that place. 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."
"I said all the wrong things but I'm still right!"
You are a scumbag.
I didn't say "all the wrong things". The LLM made a single mistake and I pointed to the relevant direct quotations in the two sources. If that's how you want to wildly misrepresent my argument, it's revealing of your own integrity.
I have compiled all of the relevant sources with respect to the forensic chemistry and can provide you with very specific arguments that you can and should address. If you want to deflect, I'll just assume you are afraid of the truth. I wouldn't blame you if your whole identity is wrapped around this concept.
I was expecting to see a reply to Archie's questions above. I guess CJ cannot answer. Still, let me respond to a few things in the latest AI screed.
ConfusedJew wrote: ↑Sun Sep 28, 2025 2:51 pm
Cyanide residues
The Kraków forensic laboratory tested walls from Auschwitz. They found cyanide compounds in both the delousing chambers and the ruins of the crematoria, while none were present in ordinary camp buildings. That undercuts the deniers’ claim that no cyanide was used in the gas chambers.
A point made meaningless because cyanide compounds have been found in ordinary buildings, as you have already been informed repeatedly.
ConfusedJew wrote: ↑Sun Sep 28, 2025 2:51 pm
The amounts were different: very high in delousing rooms, lower in the crematoria.
Krakow found that the cyanide was only ~25% higher in delousing rooms. Revisionists found that the cyanide was ~185,000% higher in delousing rooms. So in saying "very high", your AI must be referring to revisionist measurements, not Krakow as stated, which means it has already gone off the rails.
ConfusedJew wrote: ↑Sun Sep 28, 2025 2:51 pm
To kill lice and their eggs, fumigation required extremely high concentrations of Zyklon B over 24 hours or more. To kill people, lethal concentrations were reached in minutes, and exposure lasted perhaps 20 minutes. Short, lower-dose use leaves less residue.
Zyklon fumigation typically used a concentration of around 10,000 ppm. Cyanide gas executions in reality and in myth also used a concentration of around 10,000 ppm. If your AI had read Rudolf it would know this.
That's three major errors already in the second paragraph. I'll stop there. Again, if you want to stop embarassing yourself you should read or reference The Chemistry of Auschwitz.
