Flaws and Limitations in Chemistry of Auschwitz

[ConfusedJew]

Hello,

I am back and have missed you all. I wanted to pick apart the flaws in Rudolf's masterpiece. Any study will have limitations but Rudolf's approach is particularly flawed.

The biggest issue is that Rudolf assumes that the amount of cyanide found in a wall sample can directly tell us whether mass gassings happened. But he never establishes a baseline—how much cyanide should remain after short exposures, cleaning, reconstruction, and half a century of rain and decay.

Without that baseline, his numbers (0–7 mg/kg in crematoria vs. thousands in delousing chambers) have no clear meaning.
He treats them as self-explanatory “proof of absence,” even though any chemist would know that residues depend on exposure time, material, and weathering.

Even if all of his lab measurements were accurate, they cannot answer the historical question he poses because he didn’t model expected residue levels, he didn’t use proper controls (similar buildings never exposed to gas), and he didn’t document sampling locations well enough for replication.

The study’s limitation is built into its design. The data are chemically under-defined and historically over-interpreted.

Is this the best study that you have to put forth or is there a more up to date document that we should discuss?

[TlsMS93]

The question is, why is there so much Prussian blue in the alleged gas chambers of Majdanek, considering the officially low death toll? Was the process used to avoid gassing at Birkenau simply not replicated at Majdanek? Explain why.

[Wetzelrad]

Your quote, "proof of absence", does not appear in Rudolf's book. For the tenth time, maybe you should read the book before attempting to critique it?
https://holocausthandbooks.com/book/the ... auschwitz/

[ConfusedJew]

Your quote, "proof of absence", does not appear in Rudolf's book. For the tenth time, maybe you should read the book before attempting to critique it?
https://holocausthandbooks.com/book/the ... auschwitz/

That wasn't meant to be a direct quote, it was highlighting a fallacy.

Here is one direct quote clearly showing that:

These values, however, lie so near the detection limit that no clear significance can be attributed to them, most importantly due to their lack of reproducibility. It can moreover not be excluded that minute detected amounts are caused by natural occurrences or by air pollution (car exhaust gases, coal and steel industry in Upper Silesia). From the above, one can safely conclude that no cyanide residues capable of interpretation can be found in the walls of the alleged homicidal “gas chambers.”

That passage is wrong for several scientific and logical reasons.

1. It is a non sequitur. If results are near detection limits and possibly ambiguous, the only valid conclusion is “inconclusive data”, not “absence of residues.” Equivocal or low-signal measurements don’t demonstrate nonexistence — they just mean you can’t tell.

2. Rudolf claims “lack of reproducibility” as grounds for dismissing the results but then uses those same results to reach a definitive conclusion (“no residues”). That violates basic scientific logic. If data are unreliable, they can’t support any conclusion, especially a sweeping negative one.

3. The idea that car exhaust, coal, or steel plants deposited measurable cyanide in wall plaster is chemically implausible. Atmospheric HCN from combustion is extremely low (parts per trillion to parts per billion range). HCN is highly volatile and water-soluble; it disperses and hydrolyzes rapidly, not depositing stably into masonry. Even if it did, it would not create the same iron–cyanide complexes that assays detect in walls. So the “air pollution” explanation is chemically inconsistent with the type of cyanide compounds being measured.

4. Elsewhere, the author emphasizes that cyanide residues in masonry are highly stable (as Prussian Blue) and thus diagnostic of Zyklon-B use. If he really believed ambient pollution could create comparable residues, that would undermine his own reliance on cyanide persistence as an evidentiary marker. He can’t have it both ways — either the compound is diagnostic or it’s not.

5. Analytically, being near a detection limit means signal-to-noise is low — not that the signal is false. Standard lab practice would report such results as trace detected, repeat tests, or improve sensitivity — not declare that nothing meaningful exists. The book offers no replicate data, calibration curves, or blank controls to justify calling these values “near detection limit” in the first place.

6. Finally, the phrase “one can safely conclude that no cyanide residues capable of interpretation can be found” treats absence of clear detection as positive proof of absence — the very fallacy you noticed earlier. In science, you can fail to detect something; you cannot prove it does not exist without a validated upper-bound sensitivity analysis, which the book doesn’t provide.

[ConfusedJew]

The question is, why is there so much Prussian blue in the alleged gas chambers of Majdanek, considering the officially low death toll? Was the process used to avoid gassing at Birkenau simply not replicated at Majdanek? Explain why.

I'm seeing that the Prussian blue was found in the delousing chambers, not the homicidal chambers, but I don't know exactly what you are talking about. I prefer to stick to the direct contents of the Rudolf report in this thread though.

[Callafangers]

ConfusedJew returns, as confused as ever.

Is this the best study that you have to put forth or is there a more up to date document that we should discuss?

Rudolf's The Chemistry of Auschwitz is the most comprehensive chemical and forensic analysis of any alleged 'gas chamber' to date by anyone.

The reason that exterminationist scholars do not attempt forensic studies on these matters is perhaps because such studies invariably destroy the 'Holocaust' narrative.

Thus, for ConfusedJew to ask if Rudolf's work is the "best study" is interesting given that this is certainly the most comprehensive, scientific study on the Birkenau 'chambers' regardless of which side of the debate you are on.

As Wetzelrad points out, CJ opens this thread with a strawman of "proof of absence". All Rudolf needs to show for his findings to be meaningful is that the amount of FeCN found in the 'chamber' samples is less than what should be expected for hundreds of alleged 'gassings' having occurred there, especially given the conditions which Rudolf carefully accounts for regarding temperature, humidity, exposure, airflow, exposure time, and much more.

CJ claims things like "short exposures, cleaning, reconstruction, and half a century of rain and decay" without even attempting to describe nor quantify the mechanism [of FeCN impact] -- the exact opposite of what Rudolf did in TCOA, which is meticulously documented with extensive mathematical and scientific breakdowns.

Then, CJ suggests further shortcomings in Rudolf's study: "he didn’t model expected residue levels, he didn’t use proper controls (similar buildings never exposed to gas), and he didn’t document sampling locations well enough for replication." There is no question that CJ is simply restating what ChatGPT told him, of course, since CJ hasn't read Rudolf's work and certainly doesn't understand science (nor much else) in general.

Unfortunately for CJ, Rudolf took photographs of the precise locations where some samples were taken (including walls and ceiling), and otherwise documented them rather explicitly. These areas in general were less weathered, not directly exposed to rain or more severe weathering, nor is FeCN particularly affected at all by weathering. No other researchers have challenged Rudolf's work by taking samples of their own to claim higher FeCN concentrations, and Rudolf's approach met every reasonable academic standard: samples from multiple areas that should have faced exposure, control samples from unexposed areas (inmate barracks), secondary controls from highly-exposed areas (delousing chambers), sample locations documented (and photographed), samples labeled and bagged to prevent contamination, sent to a qualified and independent laboratory, etc.

This approach welcomes replication yet, almost 30 years later, all who have done so have either confirmed Rudolf's findings or failed to challenge them (e.g. Jan Markiewicz who pointlessly only analyzed free-form cyanide [CN]).

Until someone else produces samples (or an interpretation) which show otherwise, the scientific method aligns toward the position that the levels of FeCN detected in Rudolf's samples are indeed representative of what should be expected in that building's walls and ceiling overall. With knowledge of CN behavior in similar materials and with similar conditions, especially with comparison to control samples, it becomes highly-probable if not certain that the near-zero levels of FeCN in Rudolf's samples is reflective of these materials having had extremely low (near-zero) total exposure to cyanide, which is incompatible with the official 'gassing' narrative that requires at least thousands of hours of exposure for at least hundreds of alleged gassings.

[ConfusedJew]

The reason that exterminationist scholars do not attempt forensic studies on these matters is perhaps because such studies invariably destroy the 'Holocaust' narrative.

This obviously isn't true. The Krakow study proved the Holocaust but Rudolf dismissed it without even giving a reason.

As Wetzelrad points out, CJ opens this thread with a strawman of "proof of absence". All Rudolf needs to show for his findings to be meaningful is that the amount of FeCN found in the 'chamber' samples is less than what should be expected for hundreds of alleged 'gassings' having occurred there, especially given the conditions which Rudolf carefully accounts for regarding temperature, humidity, exposure, airflow, exposure time, and much more.

Rudolf never actually models what should be expected in terms of FeCN (ferric ferrocyanide) concentration after the claimed number of gassing events — he only asserts that the concentrations found are “too low.”

To make his argument meaningful, he would need to:
1. Establish a quantitative model linking hydrogen cyanide exposure time, concentration, humidity, wall chemistry, and pigment yield, based on laboratory calibration data.
2. Specify an expected range (in mg/kg or ppm) for masonry exposed to hundreds of short gassing cycles.
3. Show that his sampling method could reliably detect values in that range if they existed.

Rudolf never establishes an expected signal, only an asserted one. Without that, “lower than expected” becomes “lower than something I assumed,” which isn’t a scientific inference.

CJ claims things like "short exposures, cleaning, reconstruction, and half a century of rain and decay" without even attempting to describe nor quantify the mechanism [of FeCN impact] -- the exact opposite of what Rudolf did in TCOA, which is meticulously documented with extensive mathematical and scientific breakdowns.

That’s simply not true. Rudolf’s The Chemistry of Auschwitz does not include any quantitative or mechanistic model for how Fe–CN compounds form, persist, or degrade in masonry over time. There’s no mathematical modeling or kinetic analysis linking those variables to observed residue levels. There are no diffusion equations, no reaction-rate constants, no weathering half-lives, and no error propagation.

Then, CJ suggests further shortcomings in Rudolf's study: "he didn’t model expected residue levels, he didn’t use proper controls (similar buildings never exposed to gas), and he didn’t document sampling locations well enough for replication." There is no question that CJ is simply restating what ChatGPT told him, of course, since CJ hasn't read Rudolf's work and certainly doesn't understand science (nor much else) in general.

I have a very strong understanding of science so instead of lobbing an ad hominem attack, just stick to the scientific arguments.

If a study lacks defined expectations, proper controls, and reproducible sampling, it can’t be considered rigorous no matter how detailed it looks.

Unfortunately for CJ, Rudolf took photographs of the precise locations where some samples were taken (including walls and ceiling), and otherwise documented them rather explicitly. These areas in general were less weathered, not directly exposed to rain or more severe weathering, nor is FeCN particularly affected at all by weathering. No other researchers have challenged Rudolf's work by taking samples of their own to claim higher FeCN concentrations, and Rudolf's approach met every reasonable academic standard: samples from multiple areas that should have faced exposure, control samples from unexposed areas (inmate barracks), secondary controls from highly-exposed areas (delousing chambers), sample locations documented (and photographed), samples labeled and bagged to prevent contamination, sent to a qualified and independent laboratory, etc.

Rudolf includes some photos of sample sites, but they’re general wall shots, not mapped to architectural coordinates or depth measurements. There’s no independent verification, no standardized grid, and no record of whether the samples came from intact 1940s plaster or postwar concrete repairs. Forensic replication requires detailed, geolocated documentation — which he did not provide.

This approach welcomes replication yet, almost 30 years later, all who have done so have either confirmed Rudolf's findings or failed to challenge them (e.g. Jan Markiewicz who pointlessly only analyzed free-form cyanide [CN]).

This criticism of the Mankiewicz study is a total red herring but I don't really understand why you guys aren't getting that.

Again, you are making the same flawed argument that Rudolf makes. Just because nobody is interested in continuing to debate Rudolf's flawed analysis does not mean that he is right. Do you actually believe that?

Until someone else produces samples (or an interpretation) which show otherwise, the scientific method aligns toward the position that the levels of FeCN detected in Rudolf's samples are indeed representative of what should be expected in that building's walls and ceiling overall. With knowledge of CN behavior in similar materials and with similar conditions, especially with comparison to control samples, it becomes highly-probable if not certain that the near-zero levels of FeCN in Rudolf's samples is reflective of these materials having had extremely low (near-zero) total exposure to cyanide, which is incompatible with the official 'gassing' narrative that requires at least thousands of hours of exposure for at least hundreds of alleged gassings.

Science doesn’t “align” toward one person’s result by default; it relies on replication and control, not lack of contradiction.

There is no calculation in The Chemistry of Auschwitz estimating expected cyanide or ferric-ferrocyanide residue concentrations for “hundreds of gassings.” Claiming the results are “lower than expected” has no quantitative basis—it’s an assumption, not a model output.

You don't seem to be very scientifically literate to be honest, especially if you keep complaining that the Markiwiecz study didn't test total cyanides. It is a complete red herring which you don't seem to understand.

[Stubble]

Hi CJ, you seem to be harboring a misconception.

Please do read 'Chemistry is not the Science'.

Green & Co did not assert that 'they proved the holocaust' or attack Germar for his rigor. Instead, they attacked his character.

This is because his thesis is rather unassailable.

You continue to try, and you make very bold claims, which is novel, but, it simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Your current position is untenable and you should try another avenue to attack Germar's study, because his rigor and his results are proven. Best pivot seems to be to attack his interpretation, as that's what most people do.

[Callafangers]

This obviously isn't true. The Krakow study proved the Holocaust but Rudolf dismissed it without even giving a reason.

This seems like hallucination. What "Krakow study" are you talking about, exactly, for which it is claimed that Rudolf "dismissed it without even giving a reason"?

This never happened, so either you can explain why you interpreted it or made it up this way or we can chalk this up as CJ being up to his usual ChatGPT copy-pasta, which means you're back on the fast-track for another ban.

Rudolf never actually models what should be expected in terms of FeCN (ferric ferrocyanide) concentration after the claimed number of gassing events — he only asserts that the concentrations found are “too low.”

It isn't necessary for Rudolf to model precisely what is expected. The science surrounding the formation of FeCN simply isn't refined enough to perfectly model this. What is refined, however, is that it does form and in considerable (often visible) quantities, in the precise conditions observed at the tested 'gas chambers'.

To make his argument meaningful, he would need to:
1. Establish a quantitative model linking hydrogen cyanide exposure time, concentration, humidity, wall chemistry, and pigment yield, based on laboratory calibration data.
2. Specify an expected range (in mg/kg or ppm) for masonry exposed to hundreds of short gassing cycles.
3. Show that his sampling method could reliably detect values in that range if they existed.

Rudolf never establishes an expected signal, only an asserted one. Without that, “lower than expected” becomes “lower than something I assumed,” which isn’t a scientific inference.

This is pure ChatGPT nonsense. Firstly, it understates what Rudolf has actually done. Secondly, it overstates the threshold for "meaningful". And in either case, this isn't your own words. This must be your 20th reminder, CJ: you are free to use AI/ChatGPT in reasonable doses, so long as you label it as such.

For example, in response to your latest BS, here is my own AI output (referencing Rudolf/TCOA):

In Section 8.4.6 (pp. 357-359), Rudolf models the expected FeCN concentrations in alleged gas chambers, accounting for uncertainties due to historical unknowns such as CO2 effects. He compares gassing conditions between empirically tested disinfestation chambers and alleged gas chambers using factors like exposure time, humidity/moisture, wall chemistry, and frequency of use.

This comparison yields an estimated 0.8-8x higher expected yield in the alleged gas chambers (Equation 24, p. 359). However, actual results show a much lower concentration - 150 to 10,000 times lower than expected (or ~2,000x differential per Subsection 8.3.6, p. 360), which exceeds the tolerances of the model.

To support his calibration, Rudolf refers to lab experiments (Samples 25-30, pp. 327-330; showing 10% durable binding in mortar) and literature (e.g., absorption in Schwarz/Deckert 1929 and pore diffusion per DIN 4108). He demonstrates the reliability of his sampling method using depth profiles (e.g., Table 39, p. 345; reproducible down to 0.1-10 mg/kg via DIN 38405/D13-D14, with control retests; pp. 301-303). While uncertainties are acknowledged and discussed (p. 360), the conclusion remains: the actual results do not support the expected signals under the claimed scenarios of gas chamber use.

In other words, Rudolf has indeed made every effort model scientifically the expected FeCN formation.

Your own AI tool (ChatGPT or whatever) is likely arguing against the gaps that were created when you included only partial context (e.g. snippets of Rudolf's work, or copy-paste output from threads on this forum), which you are likely to do given that you do not understand these topics well enough to know what is versus is not relevant or already generally conceded on either side of the debate. This means you're basically ensuring that the rest of us here have to deal with the fallacies you keep dishing out, largely unaware that you are even doing it since it's directly from your AI output, which you do not even understand.

Stubble's assessment is correct: you are arguing positions which respected academics in your camp have already long-since abandoned or simply never attempted, since it is obvious to anyone with even partial understanding that these have either already been addressed by revisionists or simply don't hold water.

That’s simply not true. Rudolf’s The Chemistry of Auschwitz does not include any quantitative or mechanistic model for how Fe–CN compounds form, persist, or degrade in masonry over time. There’s no mathematical modeling or kinetic analysis linking those variables to observed residue levels. There are no diffusion equations, no reaction-rate constants, no weathering half-lives, and no error propagation.

No, and again, this is more AI-output from you as you double-down on your dishonest portrayal of an understanding of this subject. Truly pathetic.

Here's some AI output to lazily debunk your own lazy AI output:

In Section 6.5, Rudolf provides a detailed mechanistic model for Fe-CN (Iron Blue) formation, outlining five steps (adsorption/dissociation/complexing/reduction/precipitation) with chemical equations (e.g., reduction: 2[Fe(CN)₆]³⁻ + CN⁻ + OH⁻ + H₂O → 2[Fe(CN)₆]⁴⁻ + CO₂ + NH₃) and influencing factors (water/pH/temperature/CO₂/reactivity), supported by literature (e.g., Buser 1977; Alich 1967) and kinetics (e.g., 20°C doubles reaction rates but offset by lower moisture; formation enthalpies ΔH = -66 kJ/mol vs. +2 kJ/mol, note 222).

Persistence/degradation is modeled in 6.6 (pp. 204-216): acid/base stability (pH 10-11 limit; Table 5 solubility products, e.g., K_S = 4.1×10⁻¹⁸⁷ mol⁷ L⁻⁷, solubility ~10⁻²⁴ g/L), light effects (UV quantum efficiency 0.1-0.4), half-lives (Chart 9: 100s-1000s years at pH 7/oxidizing conditions from Meeussen 1992), weathering (21-year exposure test, Kape/Mills 1958; soil half-lives, Ghosh 1999a; Chart 8 predominance diagram), and no significant degradation (e.g., Equations 2-4 free-Fe³⁺ limits).

Quantitative linking to residues: Diffusion (6.7.4; DIN 4108 μ coefficients, Table 7; Hg-porosity Chart 10; Langmuir adsorption Θ = KT p e^{-ΔH/RT} / (1 + KT p e^{-ΔH/RT}, Chart 4); HCN decay/absorption (Equations 6-7, Charts 11-12; 10% binding in lab tests, Table 32); equilibrium concentrations (Charts 2-3,6; Table 8 absorption 140-22,740 mg/m²); depth profiles (Table 39); expected yields (8.4.6, Equation 24: 0.8-8x higher in gas chambers, 150-10,000x/2,000x differential to observed, Tables 35-36).

Error propagation: Detection limits/reproducibility (8.2.2, Table 27: ±40-100%; carbonates as interferents, Table 26); uncertainties explicitly stated (8.4.7, p. 360; CO₂ effects unknown). While not a full PDE simulation (impractical without historical data), it's a robust semi-quantitative chemical engineering model with equations, rates, and empirical calibration linking variables to residues—far from absent.

Let's continue with CJ's lies...

I have a very strong understanding of science so instead of lobbing an ad hominem attack, just stick to the scientific arguments.

Just repulsive. How do you sleep at night?

Rather than simply quote your ChatGPT output as such, you are now doubling-down to portray yourself as a full-fledged 'science expert'. What a disgusting clown you are.

"Ridicule is the only weapon against unintelligible propositions."

Rudolf includes some photos of sample sites, but they’re general wall shots, not mapped to architectural coordinates or depth measurements. There’s no independent verification, no standardized grid, and no record of whether the samples came from intact 1940s plaster or postwar concrete repairs. Forensic replication requires detailed, geolocated documentation — which he did not provide.

Rudolf provides ALL of this -- precise depth for each of the samples taken (down to millimeter measurements), as well as mapping and/or clear descriptions for the locations they were taken from (see Figure 60 which is a literal map for some of the key samplings in Krema II).

This criticism of the Mankiewicz study is a total red herring but I don't really understand why you guys aren't getting that.

CJ, honestly, this is your last run. You are going to be suspended/banned within the next 24 hours if you keep this crap up. It's transparent to everyone here.

I'm guessing part of your intention is to troll and rage-mine, perhaps seeking quotable outbursts from myself or others to show how 'antisemitic' we are, perhaps to take to your local kosher news outlet to run another hit-piece on CODOH.

Whatever the case may be, if you don't start meaningfully contributing to the quality of discussion here, it's gonna be 30-60-90 day "curtains" for you and possibly a perma-ban.

As for the Markiewicz study (which you misspelled as 'Mankiewicz" LOL), this study was produced as a forensic/chemical investigation meant to refute and 'debunk' revisionist work including Rudolf's but, alas, it was a total failure. Thus, it is not that exterminationists have not tried to 'debunk' Rudolf -- it is that the science is simply not there in their favor, even after they have attempted it.

Science doesn’t “align” toward one person’s result by default; it relies on replication and control, not lack of contradiction.

There is no calculation in The Chemistry of Auschwitz estimating expected cyanide or ferric-ferrocyanide residue concentrations for “hundreds of gassings.” Claiming the results are “lower than expected” has no quantitative basis—it’s an assumption, not a model output.

You don't seem to be very scientifically literate to be honest, especially if you keep complaining that the Markiwiecz study didn't test total cyanides. It is a complete red herring which you don't seem to understand.

Two more paragraphs here from your AI, followed by your own paragraph continuing to portray yourself as technically literate.

To call you "slime" doesn't even come close to the mark. What's the name of the sludge they scrape off the interior walls of a septic tank? You're that. Just putrid disgust in slime form.

Last straw, CJ.

[Stubble]

To call you "slime" doesn't even come close to the mark. What's the name of the sludge they scrape off the interior walls of a septic tank? You're that. Just putrid disgust in slime form.

Last straw, CJ.

That would be Biomat (biological material I believe) unless I am mistaken Sir.

https://cardinalhome.ca/blog/septic/bio ... s-it-work/

Biomat refers to a black slime layer that forms in the soil below or around the drain field where the septic system effluent is released. Biomat does play a very important role in the processing of pathogens and biologic solids. Without biomat, your septic system would release partially treated effluent into the soil which could result in the pollution of groundwater and any nearby wells, ponds, and streams.

Other terms that come to mind are 'sludge' and 'skum'. Skum would be on the surface and may accumulate on the walls. 'Sludge' is the dense festering mass between the surface and the bottom.

I think 'biomat' or 'black slime' fits the context best however.

Again, I may he wrong.

[ConfusedJew]

This obviously isn't true. The Krakow study proved the Holocaust but Rudolf dismissed it without even giving a reason.

This seems like hallucination. What "Krakow study" are you talking about, exactly, for which it is claimed that Rudolf "dismissed it without even giving a reason"?

This never happened, so either you can explain why you interpreted it or made it up this way or we can chalk this up as CJ being up to his usual ChatGPT copy-pasta, which means you're back on the fast-track for another ban.

Rudolf ignores the question they were actually testing. Markiewicz et al. weren’t studying the pigment. They tested whether cyanide residues of any kind remained in the walls. Their method was valid for that purpose — and they did find residues. Rudolf simply redefines the goal of the study to make it “wrong.”

He does include a table with their data but misrepresents the labeling. While the Kraków team presented “total cyanide” data, Rudolf presented it as “cyanide without Iron Blue,” which falsely suggests they deliberately excluded relevant data, when in fact they used a standard forensic method designed to measure all chemically available cyanide relevant to Zyklon B exposure.

Here is a direct quote from Rudolf that is pseudoscience and deflects from the actual data, whether it was intentional or not.

In actual fact, however, the homicidal gas chambers contain such low cyanide concentrations that they are neither capable of reproducible detection nor of adequate interpretation: The actual detected values are in any case at least
some 150 to 10,000 times lower than those detectable in the walls of the disinfestation chambers, or, if using the values established in Subsection 8.3.6, there is a two-thousandfold differential between the two. It seems unlikely that
CO2 could be the reason for such drastic differences.

Rudolf admits cyanide but fallaciously disregards it as ‘not reproducible'. In science, inconsistent data mean the test or sampling was inadequate — not that the substance never existed.

Saying residues are “not reproducibly detectable” means his own sampling was inconsistent — not that cyanide was never there. Because his sampling differs from Markiewicz' results, he just ignores the difference and assumes that his own sampling is right.

[ConfusedJew]

To call you "slime" doesn't even come close to the mark. What's the name of the sludge they scrape off the interior walls of a septic tank? You're that. Just putrid disgust in slime form.

Last straw, CJ.

This is not an actual argument and is instead a personal attack. I'm not going to engage with that but if other people want to have an actual data driven discussion, I will do that.

[Stubble]

Germar is being both 'technical' and 'literal' in your selected quote CJ.

He also doesn't 'disregard' it.

You don't understand it, and I suggest you read the surrounding paragraphs for context. I remind you, this specifically has been previously and exhaustively covered by ℌ𝔢𝔯𝔯 ℌ𝔦𝔩𝔩.

With your concern about his labeling, it is again 'technically' and 'literally' correct. They specifically excluded 'iron blue'. The reasons for this are, dubious, and they at one point conjecture that the iron blue is 'Paint'...

[ConfusedJew]

Germar is being both 'technical' and 'literal' in your selected quote CJ.

He also doesn't 'disregard' it.

You don't understand it, and I suggest you read the surrounding paragraphs for context. I remind you, this specifically has been previously and exhaustively covered by Herr Hill.

With your concern about his labeling, it is again 'technically' and 'literally' correct. They specifically excluded 'iron blue'. The reasons for this are, dubious, and they at one point conjecture that the iron blue is 'Paint'...

They did not specifically "exclude" iron blue but if you don't understand the reason that they did this, and why Prussian Blue is a red herring, I can't continue to have a basic discussion about this with you.

It distracts from the fact that they found cyanide in the chambers. Rudolf tries to write that off as contamination, but that's not even possible. He mistakes a low reading as basically negligible which isn't a scientifically reasonable interpretation.

Do you understand what I am saying? Can you respond to those directly without bringing up an irrelevant response?

[Stubble]

I beg your pardon Sir, not only did they exclude iron blue, they even devoted a paragraph to its exclusion.

It's only a couple of pages, please, read it.

Do I need to link it for you, again?

Also, being condescending and insulting such as you are is no less than utterly amusing when you are as wrong as you are.

You'd no sooner be parted with your arrogance however than you would an opinion. Shame really.
==========================================
With regard to your 'contamination' thesis, can you, shore that up with, a quote? Any quote? I, don't believe Germar has ever said this.

Edit: I retract this burden as I see a quote from Rudolf you posted up thread that is 'close enough'. I'll also give you (1) kudo for your use of legitimate and verbatim quotes this far since your return from suspension.
=========================================
I do, but, it is because of how minuscule the amount of 'trace' is. It is not only at the testing limit, it is also at the 'background' level.