The CODOH Revisionist Forum

Here's a question for the revisionists, how much HCN was the average delousing chamber subjected to vs gas chamber (allegedly)

you can express this in a ratio

HCN was used in much higher concentrations in delousing chambers (over 10,000 ppm) for days at a time. I think it's reasonable to say 100x greater concentrations taking into account the time factor.

The exposure time was also limited in gas chambers due to ventilation. How long does it take for HCN to penetrate walls or react with fixtures?

The "paint" hypothesis is only one possible point of failure for the revisionist assertion 'impossible'

bombsaway wrote: ↑Tue Jul 22, 2025 9:35 pm

Stubble wrote: ↑Tue Jul 22, 2025 8:18 am And, reenter 'special materials'...

Bombsaway, what, pray tell, would have been used as a sealer? Lucite? And regardless, you got an invoice? A work order? Anything?

First it was 'whitewash', now that that fell apart, it is 'sealer'. Regardless, it is special pleading...

They didn't use sealer they didn't have to prevent the walls from being exposed to gas that wasn't there.

For example, none of this special pleading applies to Krema I, and yet, no iron blue was formed there either.

The solution is two things, 1) simple and 2) uncomfortable. The gas chambers disguised as shower rooms myth is a lie.

I don't know whatever was used here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... acchau.jpg

I don't know very much about Krema I except that far less gassings were conducted there.

That'd be 1) paint 2) DEGESCH circulators (look in that alcove there)

See 'Chemistry of Auschwitz' p. 182-183

Kind of a Honda Civic to Pineapples comparison there.

bombsaway wrote: ↑Tue Jul 22, 2025 9:53 pm Here's a question for the revisionists, how much HCN was the average delousing chamber subjected to vs gas chamber (allegedly)

you can express this in a ratio

HCN was used in much higher concentrations in delousing chambers (over 10,000 ppm) for days at a time. I think it's reasonable to say 100x greater concentrations taking into account the time factor.

The exposure time was also limited in gas chambers due to ventilation. How long does it take for HCN to penetrate walls or react with fixtures?

The "paint" hypothesis is only one possible point of failure for the revisionist assertion 'impossible'

Are you, aware this has been argued already, and at the academic level even?

So, we move from one special pleading to another until we find one that fits eh?

You aren't getting it split yet buddy, go grab another wedge and give it a slap. You get enough wedges, you are sure to break it apart, eh?

I'm just curious, when the wheels come off this one, where is your next argument going to come from?

Did Fred Leuchter steal any bricks with iron blue on them at the Kremas? And shave the walls at Krema I?

Sky's the limit, eh?

Something to note, paint, existed, yet the walls of the morgues were given a simple 'whitewash'. Makes you think, don't it? Even Bombsaway, after he realized it wasn't some kind of force field barrier for cyanide, stated why whitewash wouldn't be an ideal coating for a homicidal gas chamber, and yet, here we are. Don't get me wrong, sealers were basically unknown at the time (what we think of as sealers anyway), but, DEGESCH did spend money on researching coatings and they did develop one to prevent leeching any cyanide into walls, and yet, this research apparently wasn't even considered in the 'homicidal gas chambers'. Even so, no appreciable cyanide leeching occurred. I'd say that'd be a head scratcher, but, it won't, exterminationists will just be like a cat and cover that up and we will move over to the next mole in the never ending game of whack a mole.

I'm fine going through all of it. I am being bombarded with people who are being very disrespectful and can't communicate very clearly.

Forensic chemistry is a very technical subject and while I am able to learn quickly, especially with AI, it is not my area of expertise. I'm fine pursuing this to its logical end but it is easier for me to communicate with you directly on here and they are free to help out but it is better to have you translate and mediate.

Here are some preliminary responses to your last post.

"Absence of HCN perfectly explains why there is no Prussian Blue" —

Absence of HCN could explain why there is no Prussian Blue but absence of Prussian Blue does not prove absence of HCN. In fact, the presence of HCN residues has to be explained and from what I've seen it is cannot explained by random contamination. That's a very important thread to explore.

Jewish culture is not afraid of intellectually rigorous debate at all. Holocaust denial is a bit different but I am taking one for the team here to hopefully put this to rest.

We can go through the major objections regarding concentrations used, exposure times, pH and temperatures. Some others may come up that I haven't considered yet and I may need to revisit doors at some point that I prematurely close in case I gain a deeper understanding that makes me realize that I made a mistake.

But I'm not afraid of this. I don't find it very uncomfortable as long as people aren't being disrespectful and they are communicating clearly and concisely. It is painful to read through a lot of text that's hard to understand because it's poorly written and arguments are coming from all over the place.

ConfusedJew wrote: ↑Wed Jul 23, 2025 3:06 am [...]I don't find it very uncomfortable[...]

I did.

Here are some important questions from ChatGPT to get to the bottom of this.

“Why did the Krakow Institute still detect cyanide in gas chamber remains if there was none?”

“If Rudolf is right, why wasn’t his work ever accepted in peer-reviewed chemical literature?”

“Why did both survivors and SS officers describe the same gassing method independently if it never happened?”

“If Prussian Blue formation is so conclusive, why is it patchy even in delousing chambers and largely absent in other well-documented cyanide fumigation sites around the world?”

“What would it take for you to reconsider Rudolf’s findings—are there any experts or forms of evidence you would find more credible than his report?”

If you found out tomorrow that the evidence for gassings was solid—physical, chemical, testimonial, and photographic—would that change anything for you emotionally or ideologically?”

ConfusedJew wrote: ↑Wed Jul 23, 2025 3:06 am Forensic chemistry is a very technical subject and while I am able to learn quickly, especially with AI, it is not my area of expertise.

If you are out of your depth regarding this very technical subject, then why are you currently in “debate” mode regarding Holocaust-related forensic chemistry and not “study” mode? Why aren’t you researching what revisionists have discovered in this space before attempting AI-derived rebuttals?

AreYouSirius wrote: ↑Wed Jul 23, 2025 5:10 am

ConfusedJew wrote: ↑Wed Jul 23, 2025 3:06 am Forensic chemistry is a very technical subject and while I am able to learn quickly, especially with AI, it is not my area of expertise.

If you are out of your depth regarding this very technical subject, then why are you currently in “debate” mode regarding Holocaust-related forensic chemistry and not “study” mode? Why aren’t you researching what revisionists have discovered in this space before attempting AI-derived rebuttals?

Excellent question!
One that bypasses the subterfuge and gets to the core of what is actually occurring here.

AreYouSirius wrote: ↑Wed Jul 23, 2025 5:10 am

ConfusedJew wrote: ↑Wed Jul 23, 2025 3:06 am Forensic chemistry is a very technical subject and while I am able to learn quickly, especially with AI, it is not my area of expertise.

If you are out of your depth regarding this very technical subject, then why are you currently in “debate” mode regarding Holocaust-related forensic chemistry and not “study” mode? Why aren’t you researching what revisionists have discovered in this space before attempting AI-derived rebuttals?

A dialectical process, which is a powerful method to arrive at truth, is a combination of both of those simultaneously.

As far as I know, nobody here has a serious background in chemistry so everyone here is out of their depth. I obviously come at this with the belief that the gas chambers were used to kill many Jews. I'm legitimately curious how and why people think that didn't happen. Ultimately, nobody will ever be able to "prove" with 100% certainty whether it happened or not so we'll likely get to a point where two people can look at the exact same facts and interpret them differently. But first we need to understand what the facts are or seem to be and how the most up to date understanding of forensic science and chemistry interprets the factual situation.

The chemical arguments come from the Leuchter Report which was commissioned by Ernst Zundel. Others have built off of that or modified it but the basis for the forensic chemistry arguments come from Leuchter.

The Leuchter Report, written by Fred A. Leuchter in 1988, was commissioned by Ernst Zündel, a Holocaust denier on trial in Canada for spreading false information. The report aimed to provide scientific evidence that the gas chambers at Auschwitz and Majdanek could not have been used for mass extermination.

Here’s what it tried to present. Leuchter took unauthorized samples from the walls of buildings at Auschwitz and had them tested for cyanide residue. He claimed the low cyanide levels in the crematoria showed they were not used as gas chambers. He argued the design and construction of the chambers (e.g., ventilation systems, door seals) were not suitable for mass gassing. He claimed the time required to ventilate the gas would have been too long to be practical.

He also attempted to calculate how many people could be killed and cremated, arguing that the Nazis couldn’t have achieved the scale of killing reported.

In the mid 1990s, Germar Rudolf published The Rudolf Report. He built on and attempted to “scientifically refine” Leuchter’s claims in The Rudolf Report, which argued that cyanide levels in the gas chambers were too low for homicidal use.

People here are generally not thinking for themselves but they are very closely studying what others have written before them. People don't believe this, but AI does think independently. It takes independent thinkers to be able to recognize that in others. Independent thinking is not contrarian thinking or alternative thinking, it actually involves real thought to figure out what is true and not true for yourself by searching out many different sources and comparing them to one another and other frameworks.

The chemistry is but one stone on an entire road CJ.

Did the event happen as described? To see if it did, we need to examine the evidence.

I think at this point, you have proved what Rudolf said about the results, and what Green agreed about, ultimately, the chemistry doesn't hold all the answers.

Personally, I think this thread has probably run course, although Mr Hill seems to think there is some life left in 'er.

So far, assumptions and hypotheses from you have fallen flat, to a point where you have not only pivoted, but, you went so far as to erase one of your posts from the record.

The murder weapon doesn't reflect use, so, now the question is, does it reflect physically what is asserted. That would be the next step I would take. I'd look at source accounts and I'd look at what the buildings show with regard to the claims. For example, the hole placement on Krema I vs the floor plan (p102ish the chemistry of Auschwitz covers this) when it was said to be in use. Kula's Columns. Things like that.

Of course, cremation rates and physical reality also merit discussion, and perhaps that should come first.

Ultimately though, the HcN levels being at or around background level doesn't make a strong case that the rest of what is purposed will shape up to comport to reality.

The questions of why come after.

At some point, it will become uncomfortable. To that all I can say is that the truth is sometimes uncomfortable.

ConfusedJew wrote: ↑Wed Jul 23, 2025 2:34 pm

AreYouSirius wrote: ↑Wed Jul 23, 2025 5:10 am

ConfusedJew wrote: ↑Wed Jul 23, 2025 3:06 am Forensic chemistry is a very technical subject and while I am able to learn quickly, especially with AI, it is not my area of expertise.

If you are out of your depth regarding this very technical subject, then why are you currently in “debate” mode regarding Holocaust-related forensic chemistry and not “study” mode? Why aren’t you researching what revisionists have discovered in this space before attempting AI-derived rebuttals?

…first we need to understand what the facts are or seem to be and how the most up to date understanding of forensic science and chemistry interprets the factual situation.

People here are generally not thinking for themselves but they are very closely studying what others have written before them.
…It takes independent thinkers to be able to recognize that in others.

Independent thinking is not contrarian thinking or alternative thinking, it actually involves real thought to figure out what is true and not true for yourself by searching out many different sources and comparing them to one another and other frameworks.

Wow!
The vanity, deceit, shamelessness and disconnect from reality is amazing.

This is CJ merely regurgitating text from Ai, …but deceitfully presenting it as if it was their own thinking.

Stubble wrote: ↑Wed Jul 23, 2025 2:46 pm The chemistry is but one stone on an entire road CJ.

Did the event happen as described? To see if it did, we need to examine the evidence.

I think at this point, you have proved what Rudolf said about the results, and what Green agreed about, ultimately, the chemistry doesn't hold all the answers.

Personally, I think this thread has probably run course, although Mr Hill seems to think there is some life left in 'er.

So far, assumptions and hypotheses from you have fallen flat, to a point where you have not only pivoted, but, you went so far as to erase one of your posts from the record.

The murder weapon doesn't reflect use, so, now the question is, does it reflect physically what is asserted. That would be the next step I would take. I'd look at source accounts and I'd look at what the buildings show with regard to the claims. For example, the hole placement on Krema I vs the floor plan when it was said to be in use. Kula's Columns. Things like that.

Of course, cremation rates and physical reality also merit discussion, and perhaps that should come first.

Ultimately though, the HcN levels being at or around background level doesn't make a strong case that the rest of the factors will shape up to comport to reality.

The questions of why come after.

At some point, it will become uncomfortable. To that all I can say is that the truth is sometimes uncomfortable.

Excellent response!

An example of someone actually ‘thinking’ things through — by themselves, for themselves.
Let’s hope CJ takes note.

Stubble wrote: ↑Wed Jul 23, 2025 2:46 pm Did the event happen as described? To see if it did, we need to examine the evidence.

I would add, gather evidence to that. For example, if eyewitness evidence is gathered, and 100% of the people who worked inside the Kremas, stated there were gas chambers, then there is not much examination to be done. Some witnesses will be more credible and detailed than others, but when there are just over 100 witnesses, not all of whom had the same role, or worked in the same places, there will be differences in the details.

I think at this point, you have proved what Rudolf said about the results, and what Green agreed about, ultimately, the chemistry doesn't hold all the answers.

Agreed, we are at an impasse, where chemistry alone, cannot determine what happened.

...The murder weapon doesn't reflect use, so, now the question is, does it reflect physically what is asserted. That would be the next step I would take. I'd look at source accounts and I'd look at what the buildings show with regard to the claims. For example, the hole placement on Krema I vs the floor plan (p102ish the chemistry of Auschwitz covers this) when it was said to be in use. Kula's Columns. Things like that.

That is the evidence gathering stage. Find all documents directly pertaining to the Kremas, the witnesses who worked there and circumstantial evidence as to the operation of the Kremas.

...Ultimately though, the HcN levels being at or around background level doesn't make a strong case that the rest of the factors will shape up to comport to reality.

The questions of why come after.

At some point, it will become uncomfortable. To that all I can say is that the truth is sometimes uncomfortable.

We will likely never be certain, as to why background levels are low. What is certain, is that the argument that because those levels are low, therefore no gassings took place, is logically and evidentially flawed.

Stubble wrote: ↑Wed Jul 23, 2025 2:46 pm The chemistry is but one stone on an entire road CJ.

Did the event happen as described? To see if it did, we need to examine the evidence.

I think at this point, you have proved what Rudolf said about the results, and what Green agreed about, ultimately, the chemistry doesn't hold all the answers.

Personally, I think this thread has probably run course, although Mr Hill seems to think there is some life left in 'er.

There are many stones regarding the chemistry that remain to be turned. As far as I'm concerned, the discovery of cyanide residues very strongly suggests that cyanide was used in the gas chambers but you are welcome to argue against that. If cyanide was used and it clearly wasn't for delousing, then why was it used?

If the chemistry doesn't actually show what you think it is, you can try to present other arguments, and I expect that you will likely move in that direction, but I am just very curious about the chemistry for whatever reason.

Since you will claim you don't understand my composition if I make a strong point, I'm not sure I'm interested in interrogating this particular with you.

When contrasted against control samples, the samples from the alleged homicidal gas chambers do not show a significant deviation. Some controls actually exceed some samples from the alleged homicidal gas chambers. I've pointed this out repeatedly.

/shrug

I thought I was being generous granting it as inconclusive, hence the desire to move on to other facets of the conundrum.

Food for thought, absolute minimum time for HcN, just during gassing in LK1 at Krema II is 84 hours. That's just killing time. That doesn't consider residual, that doesn't consider ventilation time, nothing, that is assuming a 20 minute kill time and it vanished completely.

**other caveats include but are not limited to, assuming German packing methods (2,000 persons per gassing), 250 gassings (more than 1 per day) no operational downtime etc...

Stubble wrote: ↑Wed Jul 23, 2025 5:40 pm When contrasted against control samples, the samples from the alleged homicidal gas chambers do not show a significant deviation. Some controls actually exceed some samples from the alleged homicidal gas chambers. I've pointed this out repeatedly.

1. Where did the control samples come from?
2. What was the degree of cyanide that was found?
3. How reliable were the measurements that detected the levels?

Food for thought, absolute minimum time for HcN, just during gassing in LK1 at Krema II is 84 hours. That's just killing time. That doesn't consider residual, that doesn't consider ventilation time, nothing, that is assuming a 20 minute kill time and it vanished completely.

Hydrogen cyanide exposure time doesn’t directly correlate with permanent wall residue, because of how volatile and reactive the gas is. More time doesn’t necessarily equal more stable residue — especially in acidic, damp environments like Krema II’s LK1.

Zyklon B disperses rapidly (within minutes), and HCN evaporates. Even if there were 84+ hours of cumulative exposure, it was over many brief, separated events — not continuous saturation like delousing chambers.

Krema II’s gas chamber was a moist, acidic, below-ground room, exposed to bodily fluids, decomposition gases, and CO₂. This inhibited formation and preservation of long-term cyanide compounds. Decomposition fluids and poor ventilation corrode and leach wall residues over decades.

Citing ‘84 hours of exposure’ is misleading. The actual contact time between Zyklon B vapors and the walls was often very short — maybe only a few minutes per gassing, before ventilation began. Zyklon B was dropped in from above in granular form. Gas dissipated after ~20 minutes, and ventilation began soon after. High turnover and cleaning between uses further reduced chemical interaction with the walls.

Even if there were 84 hours of cumulative gassing in Krema II, that doesn’t mean the walls were exposed to hydrogen cyanide in a way that would leave high residues. Zyklon B acts quickly, and the gas chamber environment (moisture, pH, temperature, wall materials) was not conducive to forming or preserving long-term cyanide residues.

Independent forensic tests did detect cyanide traces in Krema II. And crucially, the case for mass gassing doesn’t depend on residue levels alone — it rests on a massive body of documentation, eyewitness testimony, architectural plans, and material evidence.