The CODOH Revisionist Forum

Archie wrote: ↑Sat Sep 27, 2025 7:06 am Can you please justify your suggestion here that Rudolf relies on "a single line of evidence"?

Rudolf has written on a wide variety of Holocaust-related topics, way beyond just chemistry, and has edited dozens of books by others. He wrote nearly all of the Holocaust Encyclopedia by himself.
https://holocaustencyclopedia.com/

"The hypothesis about the criminal traces is based on the assumption that, starting in the fall of 1942, several changes were made to the design of Crematoria II and III in order to be able to repurpose them for the claimed mass extermination. The most-important changes necessary for this, however, were not implemented... This not only refutes Pressac’s “criminal traces,” but in addition also all the “eyewitnesses,” who have been discredited without exception."

He completely disregards the entire body of eyewitness testimony here.

"Both of their arguments align with mainstream chemistry, not exceptionalist interpretations. Instead of acknowledging the convergence of historical, architectural, and testimonial evidence, Rudolf claimed chemistry alone should carry an extraordinary evidentiary weight. He carved chemistry out as an “exceptional arbiter,” ignoring how science normally works (multiple converging methods, not one test ruling all)."

Please cite some specific examples from Rudolf's work where he deviates from mainstream chemistry. And please explain what non-standard "exceptionalist interpretations" of chemistry he embraces.

Rudolf repeatedly claims that if Zyklon B had been used in homicidal gassings, the walls must show massive Prussian blue staining, comparable to delousing chambers. He treats its absence as proof of absence. This is a non-standard interpretation. Standard chemistry has explained why lack of Prussian blue is neither necessary nor sufficient proof.

"It made no sense at all to exclude iron cyanides of the Iron Blue type from the analysis here. It would have suggested itself to test at least some of these samples for total cyanide with the method used by Leuchter, Ball and me."

This is a deviation from mainstream chemistry.

Can you please quote where Rudolf has said that "chemistry alone should carry extraordinary evidentiary weight"? What is your basis for this statement? Again, I am very curious about this since I know you have not read much of anything Rudolf has written.

"Forensic research is exactly what revisionists, starting with Robert Faurisson, have called the search for material evidence. The revisionists’ demand for such material evidence is entirely consistent with the normal practice of modern law enforcement. Also, as is generally acknowledged, forensic evidence is more conclusive than witness testimony or documentary evidence."

He says that forensic evidence is more conclusive than other forms of evidence and completely disregarded the other forms of evidence.

Can you provide a citation for where you got the phrase "exceptional arbiter" from, which you have placed in quotes?

Since the opinions expressed in your post above cannot be based on your personal acquaintance with the texts in question, I am going to have to demand that you disclose the exact sources you relied on.

That wasn't meant to be placed in quotes. I'll elaborate on the exceptional interpretations of Rudolf and contradictions in his analysis in a separate thread to keep this one from getting derailed.

https://ia804508.us.archive.org/30/item ... chwitz.pdf

I went through this with AI and asked it to identify all the material errors, contradictions, and stretch arguments in Rudolf's text without relying on outside sources, data, or arguments unless it specifically highlighted that.

Hence, I concluded that these walls would have been very much inclined to accumulate cyanide salts and to form Iron Blue, even more so than the lime plaster of the disinfestation chambers

If crematoria mortars were more favorable to cyanide retention, then Rudolf’s own data—showing almost no residues in crematoria compared to heavy staining in delousing chambers—contradicts his prediction. Instead of re-examining the model, he discards the homicidal use explanation, which is logically inconsistent.

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 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 dismisses Polish forensic tests outright, rather than engaging with why they differ from his. This is a material methodological weakness. Instead of analyzing contradictions, he immunizes his own theory. He also criticizes others for “auxiliary hypotheses,” but his dismissal is itself an auxiliary move.

In his samples, he found “delousing chambers 1,000 – 13,000 mg CN–/kg… ‘gas chambers’ 0 – 7 mg CN–/kg”.

Here Rudolf improperly concludes from these numbers that homicidal gassings could not have occurred. He never establishes what levels should be expected under short, repeated exposures, washing, or reconstruction. This is a leap from “low residues” to “never happened,” which is absence of evidence treated as evidence of absence.

Some of his crematoria samples did show measurable cyanide. Instead of analyzing why, he calls them “contaminated” or irrelevant. That’s cherry-picking and confirmation bias. Dismissing evidence that is contradictory to his desired argument while keeping data that seems to match what he wants.

“These walls would have been very much inclined to accumulate cyanide salts and to form Iron Blue, even more so than the lime plaster of the disinfestation chambers”

He’s comparing crematoria walls (cement-based, alkaline mortar) with delousing chamber walls (lime-based plaster). His claim is that cement-based mortars are more chemically favorable to binding cyanide and forming Prussian blue (Iron Blue). If his chemistry is right, then crematoria walls should show more cyanide staining than delousing chambers.

Rudolf's own results actually found the opposite — delousing chambers have heavy, visible staining while crematoria samples show little or none. Instead of incorporating the surprising data to rethink his own hypothesis, he improperly concludes that homicidal gassings never took place.

I asked what would happen if he were to submit that manuscript to a peer reviewed journal and this is what I got back.

If Rudolf had submitted The Chemistry of Auschwitz as a manuscript to a peer-reviewed chemistry or forensic science journal, it would almost certainly have been rejected outright. A referees response would look something like the following:

1. Sampling & Provenance
Reviewer comment:
The provenance of the samples is undocumented. There is no chain of custody, no photographic or site mapping evidence, and no independent verification that the scrapings come from the claimed locations. Without this, the data cannot be scientifically trusted.

2. Experimental Design
Reviewer comment:
The sample size is extremely small and not statistically meaningful. No replication is provided. There are no true controls (comparable structures with no cyanide exposure). The comparisons between crematoria and delousing chambers are therefore not valid.

3. Data Analysis
Reviewer comment:
The author provides raw cyanide concentrations but does not establish expected ranges under different exposure conditions. Without modeling the chemistry of short exposures, environmental effects, or postwar changes, the claim that residues are “too low” is unsupported.

4. Logical Contradictions
Reviewer comment:
The manuscript alternately claims that cyanide residues are “extremely stable” and that they may disappear after a single fumigation. These positions are contradictory and not reconciled. Similarly, the author predicts cement mortars should accumulate more cyanide than lime plaster, but when the data show the opposite, he dismisses the results rather than revising the model.

5. Treatment of Contradictory Evidence
Reviewer comment:
Conflicting findings from other researchers are dismissed wholesale as “methodologically incorrect” without substantive analysis. This selective approach indicates bias and undermines scientific objectivity.

6. Overreach in Conclusions
Reviewer comment:
From a limited and uncertain dataset, the author draws sweeping historical conclusions. The proper scope of this paper would be to report residue measurements and note anomalies. The leap to claims about historical events is unsupported and inappropriate for a chemistry journal.

Strengths lie mostly in form (use of lab methods, presentation of data, comparative design) rather than in execution or reasoning. A reviewer might say that “The use of chemical testing is appropriate and potentially useful, but the methodology and interpretation fatally undermine the value of the results.”

Confused Jew continues to post AI slop, the majority of which has been addressed previously even where it contains hilarious contradictions & errors.

Archie has sought support for some of his most glaring claims, and Wetzelrad has admirably addressed a small number of some recent errors - if the regular members of the board wish for any particular area to be addressed similar to my "building material" dedicated thread in the Research Forum, please indicate it here and it will receive a dedicated response free from Exterminationist subversion.

- Hans Hill

ConfusedJew wrote: ↑Sun Sep 28, 2025 7:02 pm That wasn't meant to be placed in quotes. I'll elaborate on the exceptional interpretations of Rudolf and contradictions in his analysis in a separate thread to keep this one from getting derailed.

Riiiight, we wouldn't want to derail this excruciating 30+ page thread.

It is plain to everyone that that post was a bunch of AI balderdash. And I will take your other recent thread (https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=537) complaining about AI hallucinations as a tacit confession. You have been copying AI output and posting it on the forum without checking it, and you refuse to stop doing it. You were banned for this exact thing recently. Rather than reform, you came back defiant and went right back to your old tricks. You were given an explicit warning about sourcing when you bumped this thread.

Archie wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2025 1:56 am Let me give you a preemptive warning here. You are responsible for everything you post on here and for all the claims you make. "Oops, i guess my AI hallucinated" is not going to cut it. You need to have proper sources available upon request.

As you are a repeat offender, you will be given ban of one month. This is strike two. This longer ban period is to afford you some time to study, in the very unlikely event you choose to do that. If you are not willing to study, don't bother coming back. If you resurface after one month and resume your usual shtick, you will get a permanent ban.

Suggested Reading List for the Next Month

I would strongly suggest you table this chemistry obsession of yours in favor of general studies. You would do better to get a broad understanding of the overall debate before attempting to tackle specialized technical topics. For general education, I would recommend looking at the Beginner's Guide.
https://www.codohforum.com/viewforum.php?f=9

If you insist on continuing with the chemistry, below is a handy syllabus for you.

The Chemistry of Auschwitz Documentary (easy introduction)
https://holocausthandbooks.com/video/th ... auschwitz/

Cyrus Cox, Auschwitz Forensically Examined (very short and simplified; even you should be able to get through this)
https://holocausthandbooks.com/book/aus ... -examined/

Germar Rudolf, Chemistry of Auschwitz (this is dense and detailed. I don't expect you to master this text anytime soon as I can't claim that myself. But at the very least you should start getting comfortable using it as a reference.)
https://holocausthandbooks.com/book/the ... auschwitz/

See also various threads on the forum
https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=463
https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=502

And for your side's arguments

Markiewicz et al (1994)
https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... port.shtml
https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=122

Richard Green articles, archived below
"The Chemistry of Auschwitz"
"Leuchter, Rudolf and the Iron Blues"
"Chemistry is Not the Science"
https://web.archive.org/web/20150905052 ... story.org/

See also Germar Rudolf's response essay "Green Sees Red," collected in HH #22.
https://holocausthandbooks.com/book/auschwitz-lies/

While it's always good to read the original sources, for those who merely want to follow the basics of the debate it is possible to pick up the essentials second hand by reading the forum. The crucial arguments have come up here multiple times. This has actually been one of the major issues with you. Not only do you refuse to read any outside material, it seems you do not even read the replies you get on the forum and consequently you have made no progress at all in months and you have polluted the forum with almost 900 posts of garbage.

(I am not so naive as to think that CJ will reform. But if he gets a permanent ban, I want to make it clear that it will be his choice.)

HansHill wrote: ↑Sun Sep 28, 2025 8:37 pm Confused Jew continues to post AI slop, the majority of which has been addressed previously even where it contains hilarious contradictions & errors.

Archie has sought support for some of his most glaring claims, and Wetzelrad has admirably addressed a small number of some recent errors - if the regular members of the board wish for any particular area to be addressed similar to my "building material" dedicated thread in the Research Forum, please indicate it here and it will receive a dedicated response free from Exterminationist subversion.

- Hans Hill

Adsorption and or aqueous solutions? If you please Sir.

ConfusedJew wrote: ↑Sun Sep 28, 2025 2:51 pm ....
Green called the Leuchter, Lüftl, and Rudolf reports pseudo-science. They treated the absence of Prussian blue as proof of no gassing without considering the chemistry of its formation.

They also failed to take into account evidence of usage. Archaeologists know that their evidence is just part of the evidence, and it is not going to be proof, on its own, of an event as large as the Holocaust. Leuchter, Luftl and Rudolf, do not understand that their evidence, on its own, is insufficient to prove anything. When their claims are contradicted by evidence of usage, then it is also entirely possible that their claim is wrong. Rudolf admits so, at the end of his report.

Considering that they have visited A-B and accessed archives, it seems odd, that they have failed to uncover any evidence of an alternative usage of the various buildings at the camp, that they say were not used as gas chambers. We are left with the highly unsatisfying situation, of so-called revisionists arguing amongst each other, what the buildings were used for. I even encounter people online who support Leuchter, and claim that the gas chambers were delousing chambers! Were the Kremas bombs shelters, showers, or corpse stores? Who knows? The so-called revisionists, who cannot revise, cannot say. Instead, they cherry pick some scientific results, and unlike genuine trained investigators, refuse to look at their findings in the context of other evidence.

Nessie wrote: ↑Mon Sep 29, 2025 7:19 am The so-called revisionists, who cannot revise, cannot say. Instead, they cherry pick some scientific results, and unlike genuine trained investigators, refuse to look at their findings in the context of other evidence.

This poster has little knowledge of elementary science and certainly knows nothing of forensics. Generalizations above are designed to derail the discussion of the science being talked about. The other evidence this poster is talking about is of course his fame eye witnesses. This is what he is trying to derail the thread to discuss. The main element of this is that they are eyewitnesses, who are genuine, beyond reproach so what they said must be true.

This topic is about cyanide residues and what they mean.

Nazgul wrote: ↑Mon Sep 29, 2025 7:38 am

Nessie wrote: ↑Mon Sep 29, 2025 7:19 am The so-called revisionists, who cannot revise, cannot say. Instead, they cherry pick some scientific results, and unlike genuine trained investigators, refuse to look at their findings in the context of other evidence.

This poster has little knowledge of elementary science and certainly knows nothing of forensics. Generalizations above are designed to derail the discussion of the science being talked about. The other evidence this poster is talking about is of course his fame eye witnesses. This is what he is trying to derail the thread to discuss. The main element of this is that they are eyewitnesses, who are genuine, beyond reproach so what they said must be true.

This topic is about cyanide residues and what they mean.

What the HCN residues mean, CANNOT be reliably determined, WITHOUT taking into consideration, ALL of the evidence as to the usage of the Kremas.

Trained investigators, such as C S-C, clearly and correctly state that the evidence they provide, on its own, cannot prove what took place inside the camps they are gathering evidence from. Untrained investigators, such as Rudolf, do not understand that and incorrectly claim that their evidence, alone, acts as proof.

To only discuss the forensic evidence, without also discussing other evidence, is faulty investigation. For example, it is entirely possible that the low levels of HCN and lack of Prussian blue on the walls that are still there and can be seen, was because those buildings were temporarily used to delouse clothing, but only for a very short period of time. That hypothesis as much strength as other suggested hypothesis, such as that they were only ever subject to routing exposure to HCN, during Zyklon B building fumigation. The hypothesis suggested by some chemists, is that the low HCN trace levels and lack of PB was due to the lower exposure time of gassings, compared to delousing. Or that it was caused by buildings exposed to the weather after demolition, or being washed between gassings, or a combination of those factors.

Normally, when investigating a building's usage, the investigation will gather evidence from all potential sources, not just one source. So-called revisionists refuse to do that, rendering their investigation incomplete. Instead, they demand belief that their hypothesis is the correct one, and they find people prepared to believe them. Others, who understand the need for complete evidencing, are not convinced by the so-called revisionists. Would you normally accept a claim, that is a hypothesis, that is not backed by any other evidence?

Nessie wrote: ↑Mon Sep 29, 2025 7:49 am To only discuss the forensic evidence, without also discussing other evidence, is faulty investigation.

CSC is not a researcher with many flaws in her investigation. What happened inside camps is irrelevant to the discussion on cyanide residues at this stage. Rudolf would have obtaine a PhD if it were not for the University involved failing to award it due to discrimination. Either way you cannot compare the CSC investigation to the forensics of Rudolf, two different fields.

While we are grappling with the forensics one does not bring in the CSC investigation to grapple with as well. What you are attempting to do is intellectually dishonest and shows to those who do have qualifications that your claims of academic professionalism is bogus. Notice Nick Terry does not act like you.

Nazgul wrote: ↑Mon Sep 29, 2025 8:03 am

Nessie wrote: ↑Mon Sep 29, 2025 7:49 am To only discuss the forensic evidence, without also discussing other evidence, is faulty investigation.

CSC is not a researcher with many flaws in her investigation.

You are not qualified to be able to say that with any authority. She was awarded a PhD for her work at TII, so people with relevant qualifications would disagree with you.

What happened inside camps is irrelevant to the discussion on cyanide residues at this stage.

Only evidence from non-forensic sources can explain why the residue levels were lower than that found in delousing chambers.

Rudolf would have obtaine a PhD if it were not for the University involved failing to award it due to discrimination. Either way you cannot compare the CSC investigation to the forensics of Rudolf, two different fields.

The comparison is over how far scientific, forensic and physical evidence can determine usage. C S-C understands it cannot, Rudolf incorrectly thinks it can.

While we are grappling with the forensics one does not bring in the CSC investigation to grapple with as well. What you are attempting to do is intellectually dishonest and shows to those who do have qualifications that your claims of academic professionalism is bogus. Notice Nick Terry does not act like you.

It is intellectually dishonest of Rudolf, Leuchter and Luftl to claim that their scientific findings can disprove gassings. Low residue levels and an apparent lack of PB in what little can be seen of the various gas chambers, is not sufficient evidence to prove those buildings were used for gassings.

Nessie wrote: ↑Mon Sep 29, 2025 8:21 am It is intellectually dishonest of Rudolf, Leuchter and Luftl to claim that their scientific findings can disprove gassings. Low residue levels and an apparent lack of PB in what little can be seen of the various gas chambers, is not sufficient evidence to prove those buildings were used for gassings.

CSC is an archaeologist, Rudolf is a chemist, she could not understand his work, and neither can you.

Gassings are important to only you and are not integral to the notion of holocaust. You have reached a conclusion without understanding the issues, quite telling once more. Not sure if you should be discussing this.

Nazgul wrote: ↑Mon Sep 29, 2025 8:37 am

Nessie wrote: ↑Mon Sep 29, 2025 8:21 am It is intellectually dishonest of Rudolf, Leuchter and Luftl to claim that their scientific findings can disprove gassings. Low residue levels and an apparent lack of PB in what little can be seen of the various gas chambers, is not sufficient evidence to prove those buildings were used for gassings.

CSC is an archaeologist, Rudolf is a chemist, she could not understand his work, and neither can you.

Gassings are important to only you and are not integral to the notion of holocaust. You have reached a conclusion without understanding the issues, quite telling once more. Not sure if you should be discussing this.

You are missing the point. On its own, the scientific/forensic/physical evidence gathered by people such as C S-C and Rudolf, is not sufficient to prove what happened. To discuss that evidence, as if it is sufficient to prove what happened, or what did not happen, is wrong.

Stubble wrote: ↑Sun Sep 28, 2025 10:40 pm
Adsorption and or aqueous solutions? If you please Sir.

You got it, although I actually meant for any of CJ's AI Slop halucinations to be responded to, but these are important points too so I'll address them here. I don't necessarily feel they require a separate thread.

Adsorption, as distinct from absorption, is the accumulation of (gaseous, in our case) material on a surface. It can be helpful to distinguish it from absorption, which is more commonly understood, by its prefix "ad" - think "adhesive", or "adhering" to a surface.

For our purposes, Rudolf breaks down the formation of Prussian Blue into 5 steps. Step 1 involves the adsorption of HCN particles to the surface of the building materials, and the absorption of HCN particles into the interior, as describd in my building materials thread (link below). As also cited by Rudolf, W.A. Uglow (1928) demonstrates that humid building materials increases the rate of adsorption of Hydrogen Cyanide. Exactly what we would expect in a humid homicidal gas chamber!

Additionally, in my building materials thread (https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=502) i demonstrate that concrete (ceiling) has an enormous surface area (up to 200m^2) which will also facilitate and accelerate HCN ad & absorption to that surface.

Aqueous solution refers to the water containing the HCN, within which the remainder of Rudolf's 5 steps occur. Beginning with step 2, the disassociation (or "ionic splitting") of Hydrogen Cyanide (in water) to the cyanide ion - this is the ingredient needed to react with iron to form the compound we are looking for.

The "aqueous solution" ie water is important not only because it acts as the medium within which the reactions occur (where the magic happens) but also acts as a "trap" to keep the Hydrogen Cyanide in place and prevent it from evaporating, since HCN is extremely soluble in water. Think of the "aqueous solution" acting like the glue holding everything together while they react, and preventing the HCN particles from evaporating away due to their instability.