A request to Confused Jew

[HansHill]

The walls of the delousing chambers show Prussian Blue because they were exposed to much higher, repeated concentrations of Zyklon B over long periods for lice treatment. The gas chambers, in contrast, were exposed to Zyklon B in much lower concentrations and for far shorter durations (often under 30 minutes) during mass killings.

"Much higher, repeated concentrations"

The claim is that quantities of HcN were released into the Gas Chambers large enough to kill 2,000 people at a rate faster than that of a highly controlled USA prison execution, and in the volume sufficient to overcome the condensation present in the room. This was also repeated hundreds of times, multiple times per day. This all leads us to high concentrations over a very large exposure time. I challenge you to explain your AI's rationale in arriving at low concentrations and low exposure time, as this is faulty before we go anywhere else.

I'll summarize this in my own words.

Postwar confessions from Rudolf Hess and others state that 3–10 g/m³ of Zyklon B (hydrogen cyanide) was released during gassing which is significantly higher than the 0.3–0.4 g/m³ used in US execution chambers. But the goal was rapid lethality and victims were typically dead within 15–20 minutes. Exposure time on the walls was brief, not hours of continuous exposure. Cyanide also doesn't easily stick to dry, cold concrete.

That was different from the delousing chambers which had hours of continuous exposure to porous plaster and brick surfaces, and repeated use on the same walls every day.

The absence of Prussian Blue does not contradict mass gassing. It is an unreliable forensic marker in this context, as shown in peer-reviewed chemical analyses.

So we agree that the concentrations were quite high. The claim is that there was 4 introduction holes, spread uniformly across the ceiling so the introduction of the pellets would allow for a uniform distribution of HcN. You can see a repetition of the word uniform here which is important. Given that there were 4 holes, we must assume 1 tin per hole, as any alternative does not make sense - for example, one SS officer using 1/4 of a tin and running from hole to hole does not create uniformity, and sounds more like the set up for a punchline from a comedy show.

So 4 x 1kg tins of pellets were dumped into the rooms creating a large concentration of HcN. Regards the ventilation, Archie explains this above - the HcN did not simply vanish from the room after everybody was dead. There is no mechanism to explain or account for this immediate or quick ventilation, so under the circumstances claimed we can absolutely hold you to account that the walls here exposed far longer than merely the execution time.

[HansHill]

Your LLM has made a mistake - Markiwicz et al did not measure total cyanides - this is your side's whole problem and this dodges the question and is immediately suspect of AI guardrails. I suggest you tighten your prompts significantly, or you visit the material directly yourself- additionally it doesn't answer the question at all as to why these cyanides were omitted. In a test for the presence of cyanide, explain why the largest deposits of cyanide were omitted please.

Will you please provide a link to the original source so I can look through that? You might be technically right while it also might be a distinction that isn't very important but I will look.

Certainly:

"We decided therefore to determine the cyanide ions using a method that does
not induce the breakdown of the composed ferrum cyanide complex (this is the
blue under discussion) and which fact we had tested before on an appropriate
standard sample.”

Markiewicz et al, 1994

https://codoh.com/media/files/downloads ... 94-ocr.pdf

I don't know what "reverses the forensic relationship" means, so either you or your LLM will be expected to explain this.

Using Prussian Blue as the only “trustworthy” marker is scientifically invalid—it’s a selective criterion designed to generate a false negative. The correct approach is multi-factorial forensic analysis.

It's basically saying that if you have Prussian Blue, then you know that it was used, but not all uses of HCN will result in Prussian Blue residues.

You also have to look at the chemistry of the environment, the type and duration of exposure, and known historical function of the structure.

This is exactly how forensic investigators, historians, and courts treat such cases.

Here's an analogy:

Imagine you are looking at an intersection. During some car crashes, a car may slam on the brakes and leave skid marks and broken class. But it's possible that the driver just fell asleep or skidding in a rainstorm and drove off a cliff leaving no trace.

Now somebody says, I don't see any skid marks so there was not crash. Skid marks, like Prussian Blue, are not always left behind when there's a fatal car crash. But if you see the skid marks and broken glass, you are pretty sure that there has been a car crash.

Another novel analogy which I quite like - lets explore this. I am a city planner, and I have been tasked by the Mayor to investigate the most dangerous intersections in my city.

Do I:

a) Inform my team to immediately paint over all the skid marks in town and ignore them completely and obfuscate them from my investigation, or

b) Use the presence of skid marks to inform my decision making and begin my investigation at the intersections that are heavily skid-marked, knowing that some percentage of them may be caused by external factors such as domestic arguments, tailgating, missing a red light etc, but also full well that mostly this is exactly what I am looking for?

Answer very carefully because your answer here will tell me alot.

"Relevant markers for a specific event" - Reminder that we are testing for the formation of cyanide compounds in two locations - one with a notable deposit of cyanides, and one without. The "specific event" being when the cyanide residue formed, and to be scientific we must approach this without a formation hypothesis in mind, unless it can be explained why we are discriminating against long term stable compounds. Omitting them begs the question as to why these specific cyanide deposits were omitted.

Remember: Prussian Blue is an exceptionally good indicator of the presence of HcN. Discriminating against these long term stable compounds is to discriminate against the very thing we are looking for. To focus on nonbound free associated cyanides which are stable to orders of magnitude lower than that of PB is absolutely dishonest to the highest degree.

You argue that we should test for cyanide residues without a formation hypothesis in mind.

But forensic science bases hypotheses on chemical conditions required for residue formation and data like the frequency, duration, and concentration of gas applications.

Testing without a formation hypothesis doesn't establish neutrality because you can't interpret forensic data unless you contextualize what you are looking at.

This "contextualisatoin" you speak of is uniform across both locations:

Location 1: Formation of residues due to cyanide exposure
Location 2: Formation of residues due to cyanide exposure

The context, including the formation hyposthesis, is uniform across both environments. This is a constant, not a variable. Unless it can be demonstrated that PB was formed some way other than gassing (for example Josef Bailer's paint hypothesis, or Dr Green's wet mop hypothesis) then including Prussian Blue is mandatory as it is a constant, not a variable, across both environments.

[HansHill]

Markiewicz et al. (1994) did measure total cyanides, but they emphasized the relevant compounds: iron-cyanide complexes, which are chemically stable and persist longer in masonry.

Isn't this an exact reversal of what happened? I believe a correct version of this statement would be:

Markiewicz et al. (1994) did not measure total cyanides because they excluded the relevant compounds: iron-cyanide complexes, which are chemically stable and persist longer in masonry.

Since I'm not a chemist I admit I could be slightly off on this, but when Richard Green wrote about this he used those exact terms: the Markiewicz team "exclud[ed] iron-cyanide complexes."

Wetzelrad is correct, and this was exactly what I noticed immediately from CJ's initial response if you scroll back up. This is one danger of using AI, it can simply get things wrong and go unnoticed by a layperson or untrained eyed. I suggested CJ tighten his prompts, or visit the source material. He asked for a link to the source material which is what I provided.

[HansHill]

They tested for free cyanide ions and simple cyanide compounds which are shorter-lived, but more chemically reliable in varied environments.

We are zoning into the problem now, CJ. I thank you for your patience. If you scroll back up to my OP, this was one of the questions I asked - why is short-lived nonbound, free associated Cyanide more accurate of a finger print into the distant past than long term stable cyanide compounds?



Looking for the former in both locations, and not finding much in either locations, tells us absolutely nothing. No answer has been forthcoming as to why the latter was neglected to be tested for. Rudolf, Leuchter, Ball etc all included these long term stable compounds and this is what is uncomfortable to your position. These compounds are absolutely a more accurate fingerprint into the past, and their omission is baffling.

[HansHill]

Prussian Blue formation is uncommon in most hydrogen cyanide (HCN) exposures — including both industrial and forensic contexts. It only forms under specific, uncommon environmental conditions.

In industrial accidents, suicides, or criminal poisonings with HCN, Prussian Blue residue is almost never found — forensic labs usually test for free cyanide ions in blood or tissues, not pigments on walls.

Delousing chambers like those at Auschwitz are among the few environments in history that were ripe for the formation of Prussian Blue. That makes delousing chambers a chemical outlier, not a standard expectation.

Chemist Dr. Richard Green (PhD, Stanford) summarized the issue:
"The formation of Prussian Blue is not a normal result of HCN exposure. It requires very specific conditions that are rarely met — even in mass gas exposure."

Forensic studies and war crime investigations since the 1940s have rarely observed Prussian Blue outside of long-term fumigation chambers.

This is simply not true, Prussian Blue can be found predictably under the known circumstances, including in industrial settings:



Johannes Meusen wrote a PhD thesis on the formation and long term stability of Prussian Blue in the soil at city gas production facilities, and notes the formation of these deposits along with their long term stability.

[HansHill]

ChatGPT might have hallucinated. I agree that it didn't make sense but that's why we go back and forth to discover the truth when there is new information to add or we need to correct a mistake.

Your AI took one of Germar Rudolf's core arguments against homicidal gassings, inverted the facts, and then gave it back to you as an argument supporting homicidal gassings. This came right after you assured us that ChatGPT "can think for itself". So did it think this would be a clever way to trick you? Clearly it worked, because even after HansHill pointed it out to you you still didn't understand what it had done. But now you say it was just a "hallucination".

The whole thing is so perverse, I don't know how you carry on like this.

Agreed and this is exactly what I had pointed out in my initial response to CJ at the top of this thread. The AI is almost certain to get things wrong due to guardrails in the training model. It by definition will not review any works from Germar Rudolf, and so inconsistencies like this are expected.

Another inconsistency I noticed is where CJ described the environment as both "damp" and "dry" depending on the argument he was making, I again will blame the AI model for this, as it will feedback whatever prompt it was fed.

I am very familiar with this material.

[HansHill]

Debunking the Leuchter report is not even necessary for the argument but I will go out of my way to look that up in the morning.

I welcome this, and I invite you to read Germar Rudolf's critique of the Leuchter Report. I consider his version to be the most compelling "debunking" of Leuchter on the market.

[curioussoul]

This entire thread just goes to show how useless and disingenuous it is to use AI to construct counter-arguments when you're severely undereducted on the topic you're attempting to debate. So, the AI lied about Markiewicz's testing methodology, Confused Jew obviously didn't catch it (because he doesn't know what he's talking about), and when confronted he just brushes it off as a mere "hallucination", and keeps harping on about Fred Leuchter. Nobody cares about Leuchter's report and it's been repeatedly criticized by Rudolf, who's study is the gold standard of a scientific treatment of the gas chambers in Auschwitz.

To be clear, this debate is pretty consequential for the Holocaust story as a whole. I'd agree with Archie that it probably, on its own, doesn't outright disprove the entire Holocaust, but it definitely tips the scale massively in favor of revisionism.

And just to respond to some of Confused Jew's claims in the thread; I'll stick to bullet points since he's admitted to not reading our posts in their entirety:

• The delousing chambers, all fully covered in blue stains, were covered in a lime-based plaster. By any objective standard, the alleged homicidal gas chambers would have been more suspectible, by a long shot, to Prussian Blue discolorations compared to the delousing chambers.
• The homicidal gas chambers (Leichenkeller) were freshly set concrete bunkers with optimal pH levels, built underground in a moist environment and in a porous material with capillary systems with significant iron levels. This would have been optimal for the formation of Prussian Blue.
• Rudolf, in his study, cites numerous examples of hydrogen cyanide delousings in similar conditions resulting in huge discolorations from mere singular delousings.
• Markiewicz's testing methodology resulted in extremely insignificant hydrogen cyanide levels for basically all buildings in the entire camp. Some of them were so low that they should have been rendered N/D because they were below the detection threshhold for the testing equipment used, clearly demonstrating that excluding iron-based, long-term stable hydrogen cyanide compounds served no other purpose than to mask the fact that the delousing chambers contained hydrogen cyanide levels thousands of times higher than the alleged homicidal gas chambers.
• You alleged that Markiewicz had a reason for excluding iron-based, long-term stable hydrogen cyanide compounds from his testing, but the only reason he gave was that he couldn't understand how the blue discolorations could come from hydrogen cyanide.
• Rudolf has repeatedly responded to Richard Green's arguments at length, most famously in Auschwitz Lies and The Chemistry of Auschwitz. Their various exchanges basically ended with Green conceding several points to Rudolf before completely disappearing and never involving himself with Holocaust chemistry again.

[Callafangers]

This entire thread just goes to show how useless and disingenuous it is to use AI to construct counter-arguments when you're severely undereducted on the topic you're attempting to debate. So, the AI lied about Markiewicz's testing methodology, Confused Jew obviously didn't catch it (because he doesn't know what he's talking about), and when confronted he just brushes it off as a mere "hallucination", and keeps harping on about Fred Leuchter.

The above is a well-put summary of the thread thus far, made all the more hilarious by ConfusedJew's arrogant self-presentation on page 2 (speaking to Archie):

It's not plagiarized and no you couldn't talk to ChatGPT in the same way that I do because you don't seem to understand the science.

I've done the research with ChatGPT and then I edit and modify it to make it easier to read to match your level of reading comprehension.

ConfusedJew says he 'understands the science'.

Does anyone on either side of the debate here truly believe this? bombsaway, SanityCheck, Nessie? Anyone? Do you believe that ConfusedJew really knows the science he's attempting to debate here?

[HansHill]

A link to the Meeussen paper (which i spelled incorrectly above, oops) i cited in my rebuttal to Confused Jew about the "uncommonness" of Prussian Blue:

https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ ... 300040024x

And a linked paper by Mansfeldt et al:

https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ ... j2004.0471

From line one of the Abstract from this second paper:

Abstract

Soils in the vicinity of manufactured gas plants and coal coking plants are often highly contaminated with cyanides in the form of the compound Prussian blue, FeIII4FeIICN63

He later cites the number of plants across the USA and Europe at 1,100 - 3,000 and 4,300 individual sites, respectively.

[Nessie]

....

Does anyone on either side of the debate here truly believe this? bombsaway, SanityCheck, Nessie? Anyone? Do you believe that ConfusedJew really knows the science he's attempting to debate here?

I do not think anyone understands the science. Even the trained chemists cannot agree. Markiewicz and Green may not be correct, as to why there is a lack of Prussian blue staining. Bear in mind, only Krema I and a small part of Krema II can be examined. For all we know, the farm house/bunkers and Kremas IV and V were heavily stained. I am still waiting for evidence that all the delousing chambers were stained.

Since there is a ton of evidence homicidal gassings took place, I am satisfied that homicidal gassings and how they were conducted, did not produce staining. Why that is, don't know. Both logically and evidentially, my position makes sense. The so-called revisionist argument that staining must have present, it was not, therefore no gassings, is logically flawed and it is not supported by the evidence of usage. There are people who deny gassings took place, arguing that the Leichenkellers were used for delousing, so contradicting others, which further weakens so-called revisionism.

[HansHill]

I do not think anyone understands the science. Even the trained chemists cannot agree.

Let's test this. Nessie - do Johannes Meeussen and Tim Mansfeldt et al understand the science of observing, measuring and explaining the Prussian Blue phenomenon in the soil at city gas plants? If no, why not? If yes, what does this mean for your side to not understand the same phenomenon at Birkenau?

[Archie]

ChatGPT might have hallucinated. I agree that it didn't make sense but that's why we go back and forth to discover the truth when there is new information to add or we need to correct a mistake.

Your AI took one of Germar Rudolf's core arguments against homicidal gassings, inverted the facts, and then gave it back to you as an argument supporting homicidal gassings. This came right after you assured us that ChatGPT "can think for itself". So did it think this would be a clever way to trick you? Clearly it worked, because even after HansHill pointed it out to you you still didn't understand what it had done. But now you say it was just a "hallucination".

The whole thing is so perverse, I don't know how you carry on like this.

The AI is just pulling lots of old arguments from random websites and CJ is copy-pasting it all without knowing any of the context. That's why his arguments are confused and contradictory. This is what happens when you have a guy that hadn't heard of any of this until ten minutes before he started posting about it and who thinks AI can make up for his complete ignorance.

In one of the other Prussian blue threads, Nessie made the same mistake as CJ of mixing up different arguments from different eras/sources without realizing that they were contradictory.

CJ has repeated some of the "old school" arguments to explain the difference in results that were offered in the wake of the Leuchter report. They only used 300 ppm. The Prussian blue washed off in the rain. That sort of thing. And then he has also invoked Markiewicz and Green.

Markiewicz, amazingly enough, actually disputed that the Prussian blue in the fumigation chambers was from Zyklon B usage. That argument is so stupid and so defies common sense that I have not seen any online anti-revisionists who have been willing to make that argument explicitly. But they will still "defend" Markiewicz without realizing what the argument actually was.



Green's arguments were more sophisticated and more focused on the conditions. His argument was essentially: Depending on conditions, it is possible for Prussian blue not to form despite usage of Zyklon B. Gassings are historically proven. Therefore the conditions must not have been suitable for Prussian blue to form. And he made some suggestions along those lines (which do not really hold up, imo).

Interestingly, Green also tried to defend the Markiewicz testing procedure but with some rather strange arguments.

From Leuchter, Rudolf & the Iron Blues: http://web.archive.org/web/201509050548 ... stry/blue/

A few points should be made clear:

1. Some of the delousing chambers exhibit blue-staining, whereas some of the homicidal gas chambers do not. Because Rudolf and Leuchter chose to include this blue-stained material in their samples, their measurements do not provide more information than visual inspection except as an exercise in fooling the public by putting numbers to what is apparent to the eye. In other words, by not discriminating against Prussian blue they have introduced a bias into using the delousing chambers as a control. They have not thereby contributed to understanding why a discrepancy in the level of Prussian blue exists.
2. The blue-stained material is characteristic of a class of compounds called the iron blues, of which Prussian blue is a member. Although Bailer4 has suggested that the blue color may come from paint, that explanation seems unlikely. Observers of the staining at Majdanek describe it as splotchy and saturated deep within the building materials.
3. In order for Prussian blue to form, it is necessary either to have a source of Fe(II), Fe(0), or an agent that can reduce Fe(III) to Fe(II). If a reducing agent is present, the conditions must be right to cause reduction. This point is explained further in some depth, below.
4. The Institute for Forensic Research, Cracow, discriminated against Prussian blue compounds so as not to introduce a bias in the control. They found unequivocally, that all buildings said to have been in contact with HCN at Auschwitz-Birkenau had traces of cyanides significantly above the background of other buildings at Auschwitz-Birkenau.

Green seems to admit that the blue staining is from Zyklon B but he nonetheless endorses the exclusion of the Prussian blue because it is visible to the naked eye. This is one of the stupidest bits of sophistry I have ever heard. "The difference is so obvious, you can see it with the naked eye. So let's ignore it!" That's like saying that calculating someone's bodyweight is invalid because you can tell someone is fat by "visual inspection" and the scale would just be "putting numbers to what is apparent to the eye."

If the blue staining is from Zyklon B, then why on earth would you exclude it? He says it "biases" results. How? It doesn't. It accurately captures a REAL difference.

[HansHill]

Markiewicz, amazingly enough, actually disputed that the Prussian blue in the fumigation chambers was from Zyklon B usage. That argument is so stupid and so defies common sense that I have not seen any online anti-revisionists who have been willing to make that argument explicitly. But they will still "defend" Markiewicz without realizing what the argument actually was.
....
Green's arguments were more sophisticated and more focused on the conditions. His argument was essentially: Depending on conditions, it is possible for Prussian blue not to form despite usage of Zyklon B. Gassings are historically proven. Therefore the conditions must not have been suitable for Prussian blue to form. And he made some suggestions along those lines (which do not really hold up, imo).
....
Interestingly, Green also tried to defend the Markiewicz testing procedure but with some rather strange arguments.
....
Green seems to admit that the blue staining is from Zyklon B but he nonetheless endorses the exclusion of the Prussian blue because it is visible to the naked eye. This is one of the stupidest bits of sophistry I have ever heard. "The difference is so obvious, you can see it with the naked eye. So let's ignore it!" That's like saying that calculating someone's bodyweight is invalid because you can tell someone is fat by "visual inspection" and the scale would just be "putting numbers to what is apparent to the eye."
....
If the blue staining is from Zyklon B, then why on earth would you exclude it? He says it "biases" results. How? It doesn't. It accurately captures a REAL difference.

Absolutely. Markiewicz, Bailer, and Green have produced a very obvious collusion of obfuscation in broad daylight.

To put this is terms of analogy suggested by Confused Jew (skid marks at the intersection), the analogy would be like:

- Being tasked to investigate the most dangerous intersections
- Painting over all the skidmarks because someone might have caused one by Sabrina Carpenter appearing on radio and slamming the brakes
- Focusing entirely on something else completely obscure like a miniscule percentage increase in carbon atoms becoming affixed to nearby tree leaves caused by the distintegration of the rubber due to braking
- Finding nothing
- Declare every intersection is equally as deadly as the next

[Archie]

By the way, I do not claim to be a chemist or an expert on many of the details of this. I do not know how to test samples in a lab, for instance. What I can do however is look at the arguments of the technical people on both sides, and look at how the arguments have changed over time. You can tell a lot by triangulating among these arguments. I can follow the arguments well enough in most cases to see what they are saying, and I can tell when someone is blowing smoke. My approach on this issue has been more a historical one (the meta-history of the controversy), but I think the historical lens adds a lot of context to the arguments.

Let's go back to the 1960s. How many Holohoax promoters were claiming that the Auschwitz gas chambers that were used to gas upwards of a million people had relatively minimal(!) exposure to Zyklon B?! NOBODY was saying that. Because it's stupid. Common sense says that if they were regularly gassing people the trainload for multiple years that the rooms would have had extensive exposure to Zyklon B.

Here is Hilberg, 1961 edition, page 570.

The amounts [of Zyklon] were not large, but they were noticeable. Almost the whole of the Auschwitz supply was needed for the gassing of people; very little was used for fumigation.

Then in 1989, Pressac, sensing the problem with this narrative post-Leuchter, says the complete opposite, that something like 95% of the Zyklon was for ordinary, hygienic purposes. (Note that the Zyklon deliveries also don't line up well with the idea that the Zyklon was primarily to gas people.) Not coincidentally this also seems to be when they discovered the Kula columns (from what I can tell this was popularized by Pressac and Van Pelt).

Given this context, when you hear them suddenly start to say "Well, actually, very little Zyklon was used in those rooms," you can see just how desperate and contrived these arguments are. It's revisionist history (in the negative sense of that term).

None of the excuses you hear are intellectually honest arguments. They are all defense attorney-style arguments that are being offered to support a set conclusion.