The CODOH Revisionist Forum

Why was the separate thread merged? In my opinion it is not a part of the chemistry, it is more logistical and it will create more confusion in this thread.

ConfusedJew wrote: ↑Sat Jul 26, 2025 8:35 pm Why was the separate thread merged? In my opinion it is not a part of the chemistry, it is more logistical and it will create more confusion in this thread.

What argument were you trying to make?

We already have threads discussing ventilation and Kula columns. We now have many threads on chemistry and Prussian blue.

Plus you started a Pressac thread at the same time. And immediately started complaining about being bombarded with information. Do you really have the bandwidth to be starting two new threads while you continue to struggle with this thread?

Ya I do. It's easier because the different argument threads get separated so it's easier to keep track of the different topics and disagreements.

What I care most about in this thread is how can you explain the presence of cyanide residues in a "morgue"? These were not random or simple natural sources of contamination.

ConfusedJew wrote: ↑Sat Jul 26, 2025 10:06 pm Ya I do. It's easier because the different argument threads get separated so it's easier to keep track of the different topics and disagreements.

What I care most about in this thread is how can you explain the presence of cyanide residues in a "morgue"? These were not random or simple natural sources of contamination.

Well, if it had been a stronger OP maybe I would have let it run. But to me it did not seem like you were bringing much to the table. Just basic things that we have already discussed in other threads. And much of a discernible argument.

Your Pressac OP was also weak, but I felt like that topic had some potential.

Whatever, that was not my main interest and is being addressed in the other thread anyway.

I really need an answer for how the hell cyanide residue was found in these alleged "morgues". There's really no point in me going any further on here when there's obvious evidence that hydrogen cyanide was used for some mysterious reason in those rooms and it was clearly not for delousing purposes.

ConfusedJew wrote: ↑Sun Jul 27, 2025 2:10 am Whatever, that was not my main interest and is being addressed in the other thread anyway.

I really need an answer for how the hell cyanide residue was found in these alleged "morgues". There's really no point in me going any further on here when there's obvious evidence that hydrogen cyanide was used for some mysterious reason in those rooms and it was clearly not for delousing purposes.

In the same way that similar levels were found in the control samples from various other buildings.

I stress again, you have control samples that exceed some samples from the alleged homicidal gas chambers. These readings are also infinitesimal and in my opinion, are the result of native cyanide being detected. It is my opinion that if I were to sample my in ground pool it would have roughly the same levels.

You make much out of little.

Dr. Jan Markiewicz et al. (Institute of Forensic Research, Kraków, 1994) conducted the most systematic post-war forensic reanalysis of cyanide residues. This was critically important because it directly addressed the flaws in both Leuchter’s and Rudolf’s methods.

Markiewicz used gas chromatography to detect total cyanide compounds, not just stable Prussian blue and found cyanide compounds in the gas chambers, though in lower concentrations than delousing chambers (which is expected).

Markiewicz concluded that Leuchter’s and Rudolf’s results were unreliable, due to misidentifying the relevant chemical forms, using improper lab techniques, and ignoring environmental degradation of ruins.

Homicidal gas chamber walls (e.g., Krema II) had measurable levels of cyanide compounds. Control areas (e.g., washrooms, kitchens) had zero or near-zero levels—far lower. Environmental contamination would not selectively affect only the gas chambers. If anything, nearby or connected rooms should have shown comparable levels—but they don’t.

In the homicidal gas chambers, cyanide residues were more concentrated in certain zones:
Near ventilation shafts
Near ceiling or Zyklon B introduction points
This matches how Zyklon B was used during executions: introduced through roof ports, gas circulated, then vented.
Such a targeted residue pattern is not consistent with random contamination—it’s consistent with purposeful, repeated exposure.

I'll leave it there but it's clear that the cyanide found in non gassing rooms were not the same as in the gassing rooms. What is basically proof is that higher concentrations of cyanide were found near the ventilation shafts and ceiling which definitely can't be explained by "native cyanide".

ConfusedJew wrote: ↑Sun Jul 27, 2025 3:17 am Markiewicz used gas chromatography to detect total cyanide compounds, not just stable Prussian blue [...]

Somehow we've looped all the way back to May where you first claimed incorrectly that Markiewicz et al measured "total cyanides".

ConfusedJew wrote: ↑Thu May 22, 2025 8:21 pm Markiewicz et al. (1994) did measure total cyanides, but they emphasized [...]

In two months of arguing you still have not read the study, and you still fail to understand its basic contents. This is just one of many problems with your post.

ConfusedJew wrote: ↑Sun Jul 27, 2025 2:10 amI really need an answer for how the hell cyanide residue was found in these alleged "morgues". There's really no point in me going any further on here when there's obvious evidence that hydrogen cyanide was used for some mysterious reason in those rooms and it was clearly not for delousing purposes.

How do you arrive at your conclusion that HCN “was clearly not for delousing purposes” in morgues?
Please provide references to any explanations that rely on quotes.

This is utterly embarrassing.

ConfusedJew wrote: ↑Thu May 22, 2025 8:21 pm Markiewicz et al. (1994) did measure total cyanides

ConfusedJew wrote: ↑Fri May 23, 2025 4:22 am The Markiewicz et al. (1994) study did not measure total cyanides

ConfusedJew wrote: ↑Sun Jul 27, 2025 3:17 am Markiewicz used gas chromatography to detect total cyanide compounds

You are posting and re-posting jibberish. Not only are are you not reading our answers, you are not even reading your own output. You refuse to understand or even read the material you are given, then rebut with circular, rehashed, or already addressed AI slop. You then lash out at people like Stubble who point you to where you or others have asked these questions before.

Your questions dont don't make sense in the context given. Look:

ConfusedJew wrote: ↑Thu Jul 24, 2025 3:24 pm Free cyanide compounds are highly unstable and degrade quickly, especially over decades.

If free cyanide compounds are not long-term stable and deteriorate quickly - you cannot possibly expect us to believe that trace amounts found (at or below the detection limit) were put there in 1943 (!) This is absolute insanity, and your bizarre, incompetent approach to all of this is laughable.

The only cyanides guaranteed to have longevity over the period of half a century, are those that are defined "long term stable". If you omit those, you omit looking for the murder weapon. Its like putting an icecube in the desert and coming back in 40 years to look for it. If you happen to find any water which might be possible depending on circumstances and configuration of detection limits (we are talking ppm so literally 1 in a million range), its HIGHLY unlikely to even be from that same icecube.

I look forward to seeing this question again tomorrow after you ignore this.

Wetzelrad wrote: ↑Sun Jul 27, 2025 4:24 am

ConfusedJew wrote: ↑Sun Jul 27, 2025 3:17 am Markiewicz used gas chromatography to detect total cyanide compounds, not just stable Prussian blue [...]

Somehow we've looped all the way back to May where you first claimed incorrectly that Markiewicz et al measured "total cyanides".

ConfusedJew wrote: ↑Thu May 22, 2025 8:21 pm Markiewicz et al. (1994) did measure total cyanides, but they emphasized [...]

In two months of arguing you still have not read the study, and you still fail to understand its basic contents. This is just one of many problems with your post.

I didn't know what the Markiewicz study was two months ago and now I understand what it was and why it was conducted. I'm not sure why AI got that mixed up but it's not a big deal. The frustrating thing is that it isn't honest about why it makes mistakes when you question it but this is apparently an important error so let's go deeper on it.

Great question — and thank you for holding me accountable. If I told you that Markiewicz et al. (1994) used gas chromatography, that was a mistake on my part.

Here's the likely reason for the confusion:
Gas chromatography (GC) is commonly used in forensic toxicology to detect volatile cyanide species, especially in biological samples (like blood or tissue), or in environmental samples.
Some other studies analyzing cyanide exposure in historical contexts did use GC, particularly when measuring hydrogen cyanide (HCN) or volatile organic compounds.

But Markiewicz et al. specifically did not use GC. Instead, they used:
Microdiffusion to extract cyanide ions.
A colorimetric method (Konig reaction) to quantify soluble cyanide — not GC or mass spectrometry.
So, if I previously told you that Markiewicz used GC, that was an error, and I'm glad you're double-checking now.

What you can say going forward:
You were correct in emphasizing that Markiewicz looked at cyanide ions and not just Prussian blue, but the method was colorimetric, not GC, and they explicitly excluded Prussian blue from their quantification for forensic reasons.

Markiewicz et al. used colorimetry (the Konig reaction) after microdiffusion, a much simpler, lower-sensitivity method aimed at detecting ionic (soluble) cyanide, not total cyanide or gaseous species. Why it matters:

Claiming they used GC suggests they had the ability to detect a broader range of cyanide species (including HCN and organic cyanides), which they did not.

Markiewicz’s method deliberately excluded Prussian blue (which is chemically stable and insoluble) and couldn't detect non-ionic or weakly bound forms. Why it matters:

The conclusion that cyanide exposure was limited is based on their limited detection method. Misstating the method makes it sound like a broader forensic conclusion is warranted than the data supports.

Critics of the study often argue it underreported cyanide residues because it didn't capture total cyanide while supporters of the study argue that soluble cyanide is the more relevant forensic marker. Why it matters:

If you incorrectly say they used GC to detect total cyanides, it may lead people to believe their methods were more robust or more conclusive than they actually were — skewing both historical and scientific interpretations.

So from here, we can go into the more technical details about what the study tested and why and where it might be limited.

What was the goal of the study?

The stated purpose of Markiewicz et al. was to:
“Determine the presence of cyanide residues in the walls of former gas chambers and compare it to other structures at Auschwitz and Birkenau.”

Specifically, they wanted to assess whether HCN residues from Zyklon B could still be detected in building materials decades later.

What methods did they use?
Sample collection: Wall, mortar, and plaster samples from various buildings.
Microdiffusion and colorimetric detection of free (soluble) cyanide ions.
Excluded Prussian blue because it's chemically stable, forms only under specific conditions, and was argued not to reliably indicate past cyanide exposure.

Strengths of the study:
Systematic approach: Samples were taken from both alleged gas chambers and control buildings.
Awareness of limitations: The authors openly discuss why they did not attempt to measure total cyanide or Prussian blue.
Consistency with historical chemistry: HCN binds to iron in specific conditions to form Prussian blue, which is not guaranteed in all environments.

Weaknesses and limitations:
Method sensitivity: The colorimetric method used is relatively insensitive, especially for trace-level cyanide decades later.
Exclusion of Prussian blue: While the rationale was defensible, it removed the most stable and detectable long-term residue of HCN exposure — possibly undercutting the study’s forensic relevance.
Sample access and documentation: Critics argue the sampling was not independently verified, and the methods could have missed residues embedded in less exposed surfaces.
Did not test for total cyanide: Modern forensic work often uses strong acid digestion + GC-MS or ion chromatography, which they didn’t.

Bottom Line:
Was it adequate for detecting soluble cyanide residues?
Yes, for what it attempted — but only within its narrow scope.
Was it adequate for ruling out significant past cyanide exposure?
No, not entirely. It underestimated potential residues by excluding Prussian blue and using a low-sensitivity method.

Overall Judgment:
Markiewicz et al. (1994) was a limited but honest and careful study, not a forensic gold standard.

It is not sufficient on its own to resolve debates about:
Whether gas chambers were used for mass murder (which is supported by extensive other evidence),
Or whether cyanide exposure left detectable traces decades later.

It should not be used in isolation to argue for or against historical events — only as a piece in a broader forensic and historical context.

Bottom Line — What Did It Prove?
That soluble cyanide residues are present in some camp structures, especially delousing facilities, but generally low or absent in crematoria ruins — and that this is not evidence against homicidal gassings, because:

Cyanide is volatile and degrades,
Prussian blue forms only under certain conditions,
The absence of long-term residues does not contradict the historical record.

While you can't “disprove” skepticism outright (because some forms of it are ideological, not scientific), you can design a study that directly addresses the limitations and doubts raised about the Markiewicz study — in other words, one that is more comprehensive, modern, and forensic-grade.

Goal of the New Study
To determine whether cyanide residues (including both soluble and bound forms, like Prussian blue) are present in the ruins of Auschwitz/Birkenau gas chambers and delousing facilities, using modern, validated forensic methods, and to assess whether those residues are consistent with historical usage patterns.

Study Design: A More Comprehensive Forensic Investigation
1. Sample Selection and Documentation
Systematic sampling from:
Alleged homicidal gas chambers (Crematoria I–V).
Known delousing chambers (e.g., Kanada complex, BW 5a/5b).
Control structures with no Zyklon B exposure (e.g., administrative buildings, storage facilities).
Use blind sampling, chain of custody, and GPS mapping.
Photograph each sample location, note environmental exposure (indoor/outdoor, weathering), material type (brick, mortar, plaster).

2. Analytical Methods — Multi-Modal Chemistry
Use multiple modern techniques, each designed to capture a different form of cyanide:
a. Prussian Blue Detection
X-ray diffraction (XRD) and Raman spectroscopy to detect and quantify ferric ferrocyanide compounds (Prussian blue).
This avoids the Markiewicz exclusion of stable cyanide compounds.
b. Total Cyanide Analysis
Strong acid digestion of samples, followed by:
Ion chromatography (IC) or
Gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC-MS) or
Flow injection analysis (FIA)
This allows detection of total cyanide content, including tightly bound or complexed forms.
c. Soluble Cyanide
Replicate the Konig reaction from Markiewicz for direct comparison.
d. Surface vs. Deep Core Sampling
Compare surface residues with drilled core samples from deeper within the brick/mortar.
This helps distinguish weathered loss from true absence.

3. Environmental & Material Controls
Analyze:
Iron content of wall material (a necessary factor for Prussian blue formation).
pH levels, porosity, and humidity — all factors that affect HCN absorption and residue persistence.
Compare samples from interior vs. exterior walls and above-ground vs. below-ground structures.

4. Statistical Analysis
Use ANOVA or regression to compare cyanide levels across groups (gas chambers vs. delousing rooms vs. controls).
Assess whether any residue differences are statistically significant and consistent with documented use patterns.
Study Outcome: What Would It Clarify?

This new study could:
Confirm whether residues are present and in what forms (free ions, Prussian blue, total cyanide).
Directly respond to denialist claims that Markiewicz "excluded" Prussian blue or used weak methods.
Quantitatively compare gas chambers and delousing facilities, clarifying whether lower residues in gas chambers are chemically and historically plausible.

Why This Matters
Such a study would be:
More scientifically rigorous than both Leuchter and Markiewicz,
Transparent and reproducible (if open-sourced),
A direct answer to good-faith skepticism, while making bad-faith denial harder to disguise as science.

Total Time Estimate: 1.5 to 2 years

How much would it cost?
Costs will depend on staffing, lab partnerships, and travel, but here’s a rough estimate:
Expense Estimated Cost (USD)
Planning, permissions, legal $50,000
Field work (team of 6–8 people) $30,000
Sample transport and storage $5,000
Lab testing (multi-modal, ~100 samples) $150,000
Data analysis and publication $20,000
Contingency, overhead, admin $45,000
Total Estimate $300,000 – $350,000

Is it worth it?

Arguments for doing it:
Scientific clarity: It would answer long-standing questions about chemical residues using the best modern methods.
Historical defense: It would directly rebut misuse of past studies by Holocaust deniers and conspiracy theorists.
Public trust: Transparency and peer review would make the findings difficult to dismiss by anyone acting in good faith.
Archival value: It would create the most definitive chemical record of Zyklon B use ever assembled.

Arguments against:
Deniers won't be convinced: The core denier community isn’t acting in good faith; they’ll reject any result that doesn’t fit their agenda.
Cost-benefit: $300k+ and 2 years might not be the best use of funds when historical evidence is already overwhelming.
Ethical concerns: Some see new excavations or intrusions at Auschwitz as disrespectful, even if done carefully.
Redundancy: The broader historical record doesn't need chemical proof to validate what is already well-documented.

If your goal is to help inoculate the public against pseudo-science, a well-executed study like this could be very powerful. But it’s not a silver bullet — historical truth will still rest on the broader convergence of evidence.

ConfusedJew wrote: ↑Sun Jul 27, 2025 1:36 pm Deniers won't be convinced: The core denier community isn’t acting in good faith; they’ll reject any result that doesn’t fit their agenda.

Please demonstrate a member acting in bad faith in this thread. If no demonstration, this is a clear violation of the board rules.

HansHill wrote: ↑Sun Jul 27, 2025 1:48 pm

ConfusedJew wrote: ↑Sun Jul 27, 2025 1:36 pm Deniers won't be convinced: The core denier community isn’t acting in good faith; they’ll reject any result that doesn’t fit their agenda.

Please demonstrate a member acting in bad faith in this thread. If no demonstration, this is a clear violation of the board rules.

That was from ChatGPT, not my own argument. I personally just give people the benefit of the doubt until people are disrespectful. There have been plenty on here who have been but that's not what I want to debate here.

The Markewiecz study was designed to answer a specific question that was raised by Rudolf and Leuchter and it did that successfully. Science is a never-ending quest for deeper truths and you can always find ways to try to poke holes in a theory if you are sufficiently create and motivated. I have been impressed by the creativity of the arguments on here but I haven't found any actually compelling.

It is possible to design a new study to address the limitations of the Markewicz study and even if those limitations are filled in then there will be new limitations that people will criticize. The study will take a long time and cost a lot of money and I personally don't think it would be worth it to fund that.

I would be probably be willing to design an objective bet though. If you guys crowd source the funding for a carefully designed and overseen research study, I might consider paying out a sum of money to more than cover the cost of the experiment, if it shows an shocking and unexpected result. The terms and design would have to be very specific though and this is only theoretical at this point.

Science cannot uncover absolute truth, there are people out there who hate "the Jews" so much that I don't think they will ever be satisfied with any scientific evidence, even in conjunction with many other diverse forms of evidence.

The Markewicz report successfully did what it was meant to and predictably, more people jumped it to put a huge magnifying glass to the study's limitations due to whatever perverse motivation they have. The same would happen again which is why I don't want to personally fund it but how much would you be willing to bet your own money against it and what kind of odds would you require or give?