Flaws and Limitations in Chemistry of Auschwitz

[Wahrheitssucher]

…my sincere reason for being here is to understand how you think and see the world.

This appears to be a case of either this psychology…



or more probably a variation of this one…

[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.

Yes I read it. Not including something because it is irrelevant is not the same thing as excluding it. Very important distinction as it pertains to study design and methodology.

Oh, in that case, I must be misunderstanding their report!

I don't suppose you can provide a relevant quote from the report pertaining to why they, 'didn't include' long term stable Iron Blue?

Maybe that would explain how 'not including' it is not 'excluding' it. That would, so radically change things, I'm sure.

Spoiler

It won't. They specifically excluded iron blue for dubious reasons and ultimately reached a predetermined result.

Also, your rebut to the post from ℌ𝔢𝔯𝔯 ℌ𝔦𝔩𝔩 is in now way correspondent to his effort, which is a shame. You should go back and read his post again and give it a proper reply.

[HansHill]

Its hilarious that the most recent exchange is between two people who:

Person A) refuses to read the material and
Person B) has admitted he doesn't understand the science behind it

Everyone else in the thread has commented adeptly, and demonstrated adequate understanding of the material in question.

[HansHill]

You don't understand the science, and you are wrong. Despite what you think, gassings in chambers, most of which were then destroyed, does not leave Prussian blue staining, that we know of and it leaves lower levels of residue, than delousing. The evidence of usage, of both gas and delousing chambers, proves that residues are lower in the former.

Dr Green and Mr Rudolf do an excellent job of explaining their positions just fine, Nessie. If you notice a mistake in any of my posts, please be specific, address it, and correct me.

**Edit** I'm actually going to report this post, because he said that I'm wrong about something. As per the forum rules, I am requesting that Nessie explains to the best of his ability (!) what part specifically of my post is wrong. If he cannot do so, i suggest his input from any chemistry threads is removed.

[Stubble]

Mr Hill, would you mind going over your effort post with me? Perhaps that would help others understand what you are saying.

I can't help but notice, it was completely dodged with this new line of irrelevant argumentation that is 'off topic' to the thread.

I consider that a shame and would be willing to ask basic questions about things I struggled to understand when I began to research 'The Chemistry of Auschwitz'.

[HansHill]

Mr Hill, would you mind going over your effort post with me? Perhaps that would help others understand what you are saying.

I can't help but notice, it was completely dodged with this new line of irrelevant argumentation that is 'off topic' to the thread.

I consider that a shame and would be willing to ask basic questions about things I struggled to understand when I began to research 'The Chemistry of Auschwitz'.

Of course. I will have time this weekend to commit to effort posts on TCOA, i suggest effort posts on minute details go into the Research forum similar to my building materials effortpost, where they can be discussed amongst knowledgeable posters free from interruption and derailment.

[Stubble]

Excellent idea ℌ𝔢𝔯𝔯 ℌ𝔦𝔩𝔩.

I'm looking forward to a productive discourse that will be useful to future readers and to lurkers alike.

Thank you

[Hektor]

You don't understand the science, and you are wrong. Despite what you think, gassings in chambers, most of which were then destroyed, does not leave Prussian blue staining, that we know of and it leaves lower levels of residue, than delousing. The evidence of usage, of both gas and delousing chambers, proves that residues are lower in the former.

Dr Green and Mr Rudolf do an excellent job of explaining their positions just fine, Nessie. If you notice a mistake in any of my posts, please be specific, address it, and correct me.

**Edit** I'm actually going to report this post, because he said that I'm wrong about something. As per the forum rules, I am requesting that Nessie explains to the best of his ability (!) what part specifically of my post is wrong. If he cannot do so, i suggest his input from any chemistry threads is removed.

Yes, it seems he's prone to use ad nauseam techniques....

[Callafangers]

Let's clarify some basic scientific logic for you.

1. Presence of FeCN is a reliable marker of historical CN exposure. Absence of FeCN is not a reliable marker of a lack of CN exposure.

2. Presence of free-form cyanide is a reliable marker of historical cyanide exposure, so long as you test it against environmentally appropriate controls. Absence of free-form cyanide is not proof of absence especially after so many decades and exposures.

Do you understand these principles? If not, where are you confused?

This isn't "scientific logic", CJ.

If FeCN is a reliable marker of historical CN exposure under certain conditions, then with those conditions met, an absence of FeCN is a reliable marker of a lack of CN exposure.

Presence of free-form cyanide is not a reliable marker of historical cyanide exposure, even when 'tested against environmentally appropriate controls', given that time and weathering naturally reduce free-form CN to levels so low in a short period as to reflect natural environmental levels or other modest exposure (e.g. fumigation, which was common at Birkenau).

You said, "absence of free-form cyanide is not proof of absence [of homicidal gassings]", which is understood by everyone here, which is why no one argues "proof" either way about free-form cyanide. You (and your ChatGPT instance) are the only ones on either side of this debate still focusing on free-form cyanide, because you are stupid and ChatGPT has guardrails and alignment biases.

[HansHill]

Presence of free-form cyanide is not a reliable marker of historical cyanide exposure

This is so stupid. To finally put this point to rest - Confused Jew acknowledges upthread that:

"HCN is highly volatile and water-soluble; it disperses and hydrolyzes rapidly

This is correct, and I'll be interested to see him weasel his way out of his own quote. To drive this point home, the boiling point of hydrogen cyanide is 25 degrees celsius and the freezing poiint is -15 degrees celsius. Upon boiling, the hydrogen cyanide will simply evaporate, dispersing into the atmosphere via diffusion.

Finding trace free associated cyanide in a location like this today and claiming it has been there since 1943 is the equivalent to seeing a cloud in the sky and saying the cloud has been there since 1943. Its simply moronic, childish, and displays reckless regard for anything approaching an honest conversation about the facts at play.

This is the entire point and reason of studying only the cyanide that has chemically bonded with the iron. It is locked-in, it is longterm stable, and it is a much much much better fingerprint into the past for us to investigate.

[Callafangers]

Finding trace free associated cyanide in a location like this today and claiming it has been there since 1943 is the equivalent to seeing a cloud in the sky and saying the cloud has been there since 1943.

Not so fast, Bucko -- we can establish that a cloud in the sky today has been there since 1943 so long as we test it against environmentally appropriate controls.

[HansHill]

[Stubble]

You see, if CJ were banned, this type of public spanking wouldn't be possible. If for no other reason than to laugh at his flailing and absurd takes, I think he should be allowed to argue his position, such as it is.

For example, by the time we hit page 2 in this thread, Nessie and CJ were already preparing a pivot away from a critique of 'The Chemistry of Auschwitz' because of how obvious it had become that the original line had crumbled like tissue paper.

I am interested to see if CJ returns to this thread. I'm also interested to see if he engages with the topic he proposed any further or if he continues to try to wiggle and pivot to something else, having reached out to grab at a handful of straws only to come away with not only his hands empty, but his pockets turned out, his pants 'round his ankles, and his rear exposed.

If we banned CJ, such an amusing set of circumstances would be completely gone, along with him.

I'm not saying we shouldn't be vigilant and call him out, as Wetzelrad has rightly done. I'm not saying there shouldn't be consequences when he is blatantly dishonest in representing AI output as his own thought. I'm just saying, he often lays golden eggs for us.

[Callafangers]

You see, if CJ were banned, this type of public spanking wouldn't be possible.

I do recognize the entertainment value for the forum but it also takes time to address this kind of nonsense, which is less productive for revisionist efforts and the quality of debate overall. There are plenty of 'spankings' to go around in more fruitful debate (e.g. on novel or unexplored topics), so I am not as much a fan of circling back over and over again to arguments which have been wrapped-up decades ago.

I see your point but my vote would still be firmly in the 'bye-bye-CJ' bucket, assuming the ChatGPT plagiariasm shenanigans (and things like self-misrepresentation as an 'expert') continue.

[Stubble]

Wetzelrad caught him dead to rights this morning, and a 3 day or 72 hour suspension is something I would propose to abate the behavior. I mean, within 24 hours he was right back to it, and was caught dead to rights.

Spoiler

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.

The "you" mentioned here is referring not to us, but to yourself and the prompt you wrote, because you copied and pasted this from AI.

In all this argument you do not contend with Rudolf's core point in this paragraph, which is that the "gas chamber" samples were not substantially higher in cyanide than the control samples, with both being near or below detection limits. This point destroys the Markiewicz hypothesis but you have no rebuttal to it.

That's irrefutable.

Although, this being the 3rd suspension, if it is indeed 3 strikes and out, that's a bannin'.