Forensic Chemistry

[HansHill]

You are missing the point. On its own, the scientific/forensic/physical evidence gathered by people such as C S-C and Rudolf, is not sufficient to prove what happened. To discuss that evidence, as if it is sufficient to prove what happened, or what did not happen, is wrong.

"d-d-don't talk about the chemistry you guys, its making me look bad!"

Pathetic.

[Nessie]

You are missing the point. On its own, the scientific/forensic/physical evidence gathered by people such as C S-C and Rudolf, is not sufficient to prove what happened. To discuss that evidence, as if it is sufficient to prove what happened, or what did not happen, is wrong.

"d-d-don't talk about the chemistry you guys, its making me look bad!"

Pathetic.

D-d-o talk about chemistry, in the context of the other evidence.

D-d-o understand that in isolation, the chemistry cannot evidence what happened.

D-d-o learn that evidence in isolation, with no context, is likely to lead to incorrect conclusions.

[HansHill]

D-d-o talk about chemistry, in the context of the other evidence.

D-d-o understand that in isolation, the chemistry cannot evidence what happened.

D-d-o learn that evidence in isolation, with no context, is likely to lead to incorrect conclusions.

We are testing the validity of what your precious witnesses have claimed to see if it stands up or not. That is the context, genius.

D-d-d-d-dope.

[Nessie]

D-d-o talk about chemistry, in the context of the other evidence.

D-d-o understand that in isolation, the chemistry cannot evidence what happened.

D-d-o learn that evidence in isolation, with no context, is likely to lead to incorrect conclusions.

We are testing the validity of what your precious witnesses have claimed to see if it stands up or not. That is the context, genius.

D-d-d-d-dope.

You are trying to work out why the residues tested are lower than found in delousing chambers and are closer to background levels in places that were fumigated. You cannot do that, by only considering the test results and what you think the cause may be. You need to look at other evidence, in particular evidence of usage.

You are evidentially and logically wrong to claim that the low levels, on their own, are evidence to prove that the Kremas cannot have been used for mass gassings. The dope is you.

[HansHill]

low levels, on their own

Wrong as always.

[Stubble]

Adsorption and or aqueous solutions? If you please Sir.

You got it, although I actually meant for any of CJ's AI Slop halucinations to be responded to, but these are important points too so I'll address them here. I don't necessarily feel they require a separate thread.

Adsorption, as distinct from absorption, is the accumulation of (gaseous, in our case) material on a surface. It can be helpful to distinguish it from absorption, which is more commonly understood, by its prefix "ad" - think "adhesive", or "adhering" to a surface.

For our purposes, Rudolf breaks down the formation of Prussian Blue into 5 steps. Step 1 involves the adsorption of HCN particles to the surface of the building materials, and the absorption of HCN particles into the interior, as describd in my building materials thread (link below). As also cited by Rudolf, W.A. Uglow (1928) demonstrates that humid building materials increases the rate of adsorption of Hydrogen Cyanide. Exactly what we would expect in a humid homicidal gas chamber!

Additionally, in my building materials thread (https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=502) i demonstrate that concrete (ceiling) has an enormous surface area (up to 200m^2) which will also facilitate and accelerate HCN ad & absorption to that surface.

Aqueous solution refers to the water containing the HCN, within which the remainder of Rudolf's 5 steps occur. Beginning with step 2, the disassociation (or "ionic splitting") of Hydrogen Cyanide (in water) to the cyanide ion - this is the ingredient needed to react with iron to form the compound we are looking for.

The "aqueous solution" ie water is important not only because it acts as the medium within which the reactions occur (where the magic happens) but also acts as a "trap" to keep the Hydrogen Cyanide in place and prevent it from evaporating, since HCN is extremely soluble in water. Think of the "aqueous solution" acting like the glue holding everything together while they react, and preventing the HCN particles from evaporating away due to their instability.

You are too kind Sir, thank you!

[Nessie]

low levels, on their own

Wrong as always.

Low levels of HCN, on their own, is insufficient evidence to prove that the buildings were never used as gas chambers. There are other explanations as to why the level is lower than is found in the delousing chambers. You have no other evidence, to corroborate the low levels, that would prove the chambers were not used to gas people.

[HansHill]

"on their own"

Wrong.

No residues, plus no holes, plus no Kula Columns, plus impossible throughput, plus impossible cremation rates = very bad news for Nessie.

My condolences.

[Nessie]

"on their own"

Wrong.

No residues, plus no holes, plus no Kula Columns, plus impossible throughput, plus impossible cremation rates = very bad news for Nessie.

My condolences.

Please explain how low residues, on their own, prove that the Kremas and two farm house bunkers cannot have been used for gassings.

[Archie]

"on their own"

Wrong.

No residues, plus no holes, plus no Kula Columns, plus impossible throughput, plus impossible cremation rates = very bad news for Nessie.

My condolences.

Please explain how low residues, on their own, prove that the Kremas and two farm house bunkers cannot have been used for gassings.

Straw man.

First, let’s establish the facts that are in evidence. The alleged homicidal gas chambers have only trace readings of cyanides, similar to what you would find in random rooms. In contrast, the fumigation chambers at Auschwitz where Zyklon B is known to have been used have many orders of magnitude higher readings.

In your opinion, are these facts
A) Evidence FOR the Holocaust
B) Evidence AGAINST the Holocaust
C) Of no interest (or totally inconclusive)

We must of course consider other evidence as well. But if you were honest, you would admit that the evidence on this point goes against you.

[Nessie]

"on their own"

Wrong.

No residues, plus no holes, plus no Kula Columns, plus impossible throughput, plus impossible cremation rates = very bad news for Nessie.

My condolences.

Please explain how low residues, on their own, prove that the Kremas and two farm house bunkers cannot have been used for gassings.

Straw man.

How so? It is clear that Rudolf bases his claim on no gassings, only on the lack of residue.

First, let’s establish the facts that are in evidence. The alleged homicidal gas chambers have only trace readings of cyanides, similar to what you would find in random rooms. In contrast, the fumigation chambers at Auschwitz where Zyklon B is known to have been used have many orders of magnitude higher readings.

Agreed.

In your opinion, are these facts
A) Evidence FOR the Holocaust
B) Evidence AGAINST the Holocaust
C) Of no interest (or totally inconclusive)

I am not sure what your point is there. Evidence is evidence, whether it is for or against the Holocaust.

We must of course consider other evidence as well. But if you were honest, you would admit that the evidence on this point goes against you.

What evidence?

[Archie]

In your opinion, are these facts
A) Evidence FOR the Holocaust
B) Evidence AGAINST the Holocaust
C) Of no interest (or totally inconclusive)

I am not sure what your point is there. Evidence is evidence, whether it is for or against the Holocaust.

I don't believe your claim that you don't understand the point.

The Holocaust story says that Zyklon B was used extensively in certain rooms the witnesses say were used for homicidal gassings.

If there were significant levels of cyanide in the walls, this would be evidence FOR the Holocaust (or, more precisely, for Zyklon usage). Just like it's evidence that Zyklon was used in the fumigation chambers. Do you agree?

But we don't see that in the alleged homicidal gas chambers.

If we do not see significant levels of cyanide compounds, then this evidence goes against the story. At best it is inconclusive.

To take things further, we must consider the conditions (materials, moisture, etc) to determine whether PB formation would have been likely, and this has been done. It turns out it the conditions were favorable for PB formation in which case this becomes a strong point against the story.

The chemical evidence does need to be a standalone 100% conclusive debunking of the Holocaust (that is your straw man). We can leave open the (unlikely) possibility that some mysterious and totally unknown condition prevented PB formation in these chambers. But you are making entirely too much of what is nothing more than routine epistemic humility, something you would do well to emulate.

Your side is entirely on the defensive here because they have been forced to suggest numerous highly speculative and contradictory scenarios (excuses really) all to try to say the chemical evidence isn't conclusive.

[Nessie]

In your opinion, are these facts
A) Evidence FOR the Holocaust
B) Evidence AGAINST the Holocaust
C) Of no interest (or totally inconclusive)

I am not sure what your point is there. Evidence is evidence, whether it is for or against the Holocaust.

I don't believe your claim that you don't understand the point.

The Holocaust story says that Zyklon B was used extensively in certain rooms the witnesses say were used for homicidal gassings.

If there were significant levels of cyanide in the walls, this would be evidence FOR the Holocaust (or, more precisely, for Zyklon usage). Just like it's evidence that Zyklon was used in the fumigation chambers. Do you agree?

Yes, in that higher levels would be closer to what would be expected for gassings. But that expectation is an assumption based on what seems to make sense.

But we don't see that in the alleged homicidal gas chambers.

What little is left of them. Krema I has been altered and only a small part of Krema II can be accessed and it has been open to the elements for decades.

If we do not see significant levels of cyanide compounds, then this evidence goes against the story. At best it is inconclusive.

It is inconclusive, because there are obvious, common sense reasons why levels are lower and there is no sign of PB. You just chose to hand wave away those reasons, in the same way you happily hand wave away a lot of evidence.

To take things further, we must consider the conditions (materials, moisture, etc) to determine whether PB formation would have been likely, and this has been done. It turns out it the conditions were favorable for PB formation in which case this becomes a strong point against the story.

As Rudolf concludes his report, that may be wrong. Actual testing is needed.

The chemical evidence does need to be a standalone 100% conclusive debunking of the Holocaust (that is your straw man).

You use it as stand alone evidence of no gassings at A-B. You have no other evidence. You have some arguments, like not believing the ventilation system could have coped, but that is not evidence.

We can leave open the (unlikely) possibility that some mysterious and totally unknown condition prevented PB formation in these chambers. But you are making entirely too much of what is nothing more than routine epistemic humility, something you would do well to emulate.

You do not know that PB did not start to form at any point, in any of the chambers. The staining would have gradually formed, not just appeared as seen now in delousing chambers, after one gassing.

Your side is entirely on the defensive here because they have been forced to suggest numerous highly speculative and contradictory scenarios (excuses really) all to try to say the chemical evidence isn't conclusive.

That the chambers were washed and even painted between gassings, is evidenced. That they have been blown up, demolished or heavily modified, and left open to the elements, is evidenced. That the gassings lasted for far less time than delousings, is evidenced. That very little of the chambers is left to examine, is evidenced. You are being deliberately wrong by claiming all we have is speculation and contradiction. Instead, we have evidence, way more than you. So, typically, you misrepresent and hand wave away.

That evidence proves good, sound, common sense reasons why there is no apparent PB on view in what is left of the actual chambers and why testing has so far, only found lower end levels of HCN. That you chose to ignore those reasons, is why you have falled for the hoax being pushed by Rudolf, Leuchter and others. How do I know it is a hoax? The evidence of usage is that the Kremas were used for homicidal gassings.

[HansHill]

- Washing the walls is a red herring for reasons that have been explained ad nauseam which you lack the clarity of thought to understand

- Short exposure times is another red herring that has also been explained ad nauseam which you also lack the ability to understand (at least you aren't alone in this)

- "inaccessible Krema II" - this is an abysmal argument where you are suggesting, against the grain of your own side, that PB may have formed without giving reasons as to why you expect this (remember, your side say the pH was not suitable in this environment)

- "painted" / "whitewashed" - another abysmal argument that has been explained ad nauseam which you admitted you don't understand the scientific reasons why this is foolish

- "Rudolf admits he might be wrong" - this is called falsifiability and it increases the strength of a theory, rather than weakening it. You have said numerous times that you don't understand science, and it shows, because falsification is a demonstration of good faith on Rudolf's part. You are dishonestly and unscrupulously looking for attack vectors and this one sounds good to your untrained mind

- "common sense reasons why there is no apparent PB" - this is not true at all, and Markiewicz, Green et al must contort their reasoning in ways that are anything but common. Again, you don't understand it, so how can it be "common sense" to you.

[Nessie]

- Washing the walls is a red herring for reasons that have been explained ad nauseam which you lack the clarity of thought to understand

- Short exposure times is another red herring that has also been explained ad nauseam which you also lack the ability to understand (at least you aren't alone in this)

That is your biased opinion. Common sense states that washing and the shorter exposure times explain the lower HCN residues.

- "inaccessible Krema II" - this is an abysmal argument where you are suggesting, against the grain of your own side, that PB may have formed without giving reasons as to why you expect this (remember, your side say the pH was not suitable in this environment)

It is a fact that only a small part of Krema II's Leichenkeller can be accessed and none of the Leichenkellers in the other buildings are left to be examined. We have seen from the surviving delousing chambers, that absorption into the walls is not even. It is entirely possible that higher levels and even some PB staining may have been present in one, or more of the Leichenkellers.

There are various opinions on the environment that would have been inside the Leichenkellers during the gassings. That is the problem, they are all opinions, as we do not know the precise conditions. You have attached yourself to an opinion you favour and imagine you must be correct.

- "painted" / "whitewashed" - another abysmal argument that has been explained ad nauseam which you admitted you don't understand the scientific reasons why this is foolish

PB does not form instantly dark blue. It can be far lighter, as seen on the Majdanek walls. Paint over that, and there will be no visible staining. That can explain the lack of any staining in the small part of Krema II that can be accessed. It may also explain the lack of staining in Krema I.

- "Rudolf admits he might be wrong" - this is called falsifiability and it increases the strength of a theory, rather than weakening it. You have said numerous times that you don't understand science, and it shows, because falsification is a demonstration of good faith on Rudolf's part. You are dishonestly and unscrupulously looking for attack vectors and this one sounds good to your untrained mind.

Falsifiability does not strengthen a theory. It merely means that theory may be wrong and there is a way of proving that. That Rudolf accepts he may be wrong, does show good faith on his part. The evidence of usage proves he is wrong.

- "common sense reasons why there is no apparent PB" - this is not true at all, and Markiewicz, Green et al must contort their reasoning in ways that are anything but common. Again, you don't understand it, so how can it be "common sense" to you.

Painting over PB staining will mean that there is no longer visible PB staining. Less exposure time at lower levels than in a delousing chamber, means there is less absorption, to cause PB staining. That is common sense. I leave contorted reasoning to so-called revisionists, since they cannot evidence what took place inside the Leichenkellers and their theory is at odds with what is evidenced to have taken place.