Flaws and Limitations in Chemistry of Auschwitz

[TlsMS93]

You don't even study revisionist literature and you want answers here. It would be better to close the topic or answer the pertinent question I formulated: why is there visible and very thick Prussian blue in the gas chambers at Majdanek, even though the official death toll is almost negligible compared to Birkenau?

Aren't they gas chambers? For decades they were, why did they collapse? Does that mean that building wasn't a gas chamber?

[ConfusedJew]

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.

You have to prove that those conditions are met otherwise the lack of FeCN doesn't tell us anything.

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).

OK, but the only way that you would detect free-form cyanide but not due to historical cyanide exposure is from sample contamination, decomposition, or an analytical artifact (a false or misleading result that’s created by the testing or measurement process itself).

Where does Rudolf "prove" that the detection of free-form cyanide was caused by anything other than cyanide exposure? That precise issue has to be closely evaluated.

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.

I've seen that argument but as long as you admit that a low or absent level of measured cyanide is not proof that the gas chambers were not used to murder people, then we are OK. You still need to explain why the Markiewicz report found cyanide in the gas chambers. And I believe that they used proper controls, unlike Rudolf, which is meaningful.

[ConfusedJew]

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.

Iron cyanide only forms under special conditions so you have to prove that those conditions existed for FeCN to form otherwise your point is completely moot.

I don't think FeCN is a good fingerprint at all personally so please elaborate on why you think that it is.

[ConfusedJew]

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.

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

I'm coming back to this in a bit as I said I would but it requires me to do more research.

[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

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'.

I'm coming back to this in a bit as I said I would but it requires me to do more research.

You have to research if you got caught by Wetzelrad cooking up copy pasta?

Wow.

Spoiler

[Callafangers]

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.

You have to prove that those conditions are met otherwise the lack of FeCN doesn't tell us anything.

This is what Rudolf did with precision, and what you ignore.

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).

OK, but the only way that you would detect free-form cyanide but not due to historical cyanide exposure is from sample contamination, decomposition, or an analytical artifact (a false or misleading result that’s created by the testing or measurement process itself).

Where does Rudolf "prove" that the detection of free-form cyanide was caused by anything other than cyanide exposure? That precise issue has to be closely evaluated.

CJ, this is more AI garbage. Rudolf does not need to prove where trace environmental levels of CN came from. The levels are meaningless when measured at this level, such that there is no way to correlate them to any particular event.

I've seen that argument but as long as you admit that a low or absent level of measured cyanide is not proof that the gas chambers were not used to murder people, then we are OK. You still need to explain why the Markiewicz report found cyanide in the gas chambers. And I believe that they used proper controls, unlike Rudolf, which is meaningful.

I'm convinced the last straw has arrived. Your permanent ban is called for at this point. Count this as my formal recommendation as such.

Goodbye, CJ.

[Archie]

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.

There's no point in giving him more temporary bans. He will never change. JewPT has already been banned twice for AI plagiarism. And he was told he would get a permanent ban if he did it again. Then on his first day back we see he can't even go two posts without resorting to AI. He's clearly not serious and is apparently only here to defend his tribe and waste our time by spamming the board with low-effort slop. I feel I have to follow through here.

I get that people might enjoy batting him around, but every thread with him just goes around in pointless circles. He does zero research and his posts are not his own original thoughts. Consequently he doesn't understand what he posts and he doesn't remember what arguments he's already posted or what the responses were. It's impossible to have a worthwhile discussion with someone like this.

[Stubble]

Understood Sir. Your hammer;



Goodbye CJ. I will miss seeing you get absolutely ragdolled routinely.

[Archie]

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.

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

I'm coming back to this in a bit as I said I would but it requires me to do more research.

Don't bother. You already blew it.

If anyone wants to get their licks in on CJ do it soon before he gets the boot.

[Stubble]

Archie,

You are a patient, patient man, and you approached that fellow with the lightest of gloves from the very beginning.

He was afforded every chance to change and to be forthright and honest. Unfortunately, the truth is not in him.

I still can't believe the fellow never once turned a single page or committed a solitary independent thought in all the posts he racked up in his tenure.

This is only the second member of the board to be banned. Both earned it through action.

RIP CJ

[ConfusedJew]

CJ, this is more AI garbage. Rudolf does not need to prove where trace environmental levels of CN came from. The levels are meaningless when measured at this level, such that there is no way to correlate them to any particular event.

I'm convinced the last straw has arrived. Your permanent ban is called for at this point. Count this as my formal recommendation as such.

Goodbye, CJ.

That is not "AI garbage". If you can't answer the question then fine, but banning me because you can't answer is lame.

This is directly from the Markiewicz report.

10 samples of plaster from the delousing chamber (Block No 3 at Auschwitz), 10 samples from gas chamber ruins and, in addition, 2 control samples from the buildings which, as living quarters, had not been in contact with hydrogen cyanide. Out of the 10 samples from the delousing chamber, seven contained cyanogen compounds at concentrations from 9 to 147 µg in conversion to potassium cyanide (which was used to construct the calibration curve) and 100 g of material. As far as the ruins are concerned, the presence of cyanide was demonstrated only in the sample from the ruins of Crematorium Chamber No II at Birkenau. Neither of the control samples contained cyanides.

If you can't explain why the controls expectedly showed no cyanide while the homicidal chamber did using the same exact method, you need to explain how it got contaminated. Otherwise, you are not doing serious scientific investigation and are just ignoring evidence because it disconfirms your theory.

[ConfusedJew]

Another quote that requires a legitimate response. I've already led to you to several outs, but you have to prove them.

The results of analyses are presented in Tables I-IV. They unequivocally show that the cyanide compounds occur in all the facilities that, according to the source data, were in contact with them. On the other hand, they do not occur in dwelling accommodations, which was shown by means of control samples. The concentrations of cyanide compounds in the samples collected from one and the same room or building show great differences. This indicates that the conditions that favour the formation of stable compounds as a result of the reaction of hydrogen cyanide with the components of the walls, occur locally. In this connection it takes quite a large number of samples from a given facility to give us a chance to come upon this sort of local accumulation of cyanide compounds.

[ConfusedJew]

Here Rudolf tries to explain away the results from the Markiewicz study and doesn't do a very good job in my opinion.

...when considering that they determined the cyanide content using photometry, we need to keep in mind that Meeussen et al. had clearly established that major amounts of carbonate can consistently result in reproducible false positives (see Table 26 on p. 302). It is therefore not far-fetched to posit that the readings Markiewicz and his colleagues obtained from their masonry samples did not reflect their cyanide content but to a major degree or maybe even exclusively their carbonate content.

In order to illustrate the order of magnitude with which Markiewicz and his colleagues rigged their results by choosing an unsuitable method, I have juxtaposed their analysis results with those of Fred Leuchter, John C. Ball, and mine in Table 37.

I don't know how to copy and paste the table in here but it's not clear to me the point that he's trying to make.

I will spare the reader any further discussion of these results, because analysis results obtained in a methodically incorrect manner cannot be corrected even by correct interpretation. Any attempt at interpretation is therefore a waste of time.

Here he simply refuses to explain his reasoning.

One major challenge when analyzing masonry samples is the presence of carbonate. Concrete, mortar and plaster samples that are several decades old are all carbonated to a high degree, hence contain major quantities of carbonates
mainly in the form of calcium carbonate (CaCO3). Meeussen/ Temminghof et al. (1989) have determined the false positives caused by carbonate in liquid solutions of 0.1 mg of cyanide per liter of water as listed in Table 26.

Since all of you here are chemistry experts, would you like to explain to me how this works exactly and also why there was a false positive in the homicidal chamber but not in the living quarter controls?

[ConfusedJew]

Don't bother. You already blew it.

If anyone wants to get their licks in on CJ do it soon before he gets the boot.

I don't think this is fair but I am almost ready to go anyway. I want you guys to explain how you think Markiewicz' report had a false positive despite testing positive in the homicidal chamber but negative in the controls. Why would one be contaminated and not the other?

It's possible to look for uncertainty ad infinitum to refuse to accept a scientific conclusion but some arguments are better at doing that than others and I don't think Rudolf adequately argues that in the slightest.

[Nessie]

...

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.

No experimentation has been completed, to determine what is left of HCN residue, under differing conditions.

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).

Which means that the exposed remains of the gas chambers, in Kremas II to V and the two farmhouse/bunkers, are going to be low, so it is hardly surprising that the testing found they were low, like background levels found inside intact buildings.

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.

So-called revisionists are arguing that residues are low, therefore no gassings took place.