A request to Confused Jew

[HansHill]

Since Confused Jew has been here for approximately a month, and claims to have been trying to learn all about this denial stuff, I wonder does he have the following:

- An explanation as to the absence of Prussian Blue in Krema II
- An explanation as to why the Poles (Markiewicz et al) omitted total cyanides from their test samples
- An explanation as to why non-long term stable cyanide residues are a more accurate fingerprint into the distant past than cyanide residues that are long term stable.

This is simultaneously a check-in on Confused Jew's supposedly increasing knowledge but also to keep him on track for what exactly he needs to be learning and debating if he is taking this seriously.

I'm not expecting much so I'll check back in in a few days if something of note materialises.

[ConfusedJew]

Sure, that is fine. I don't know anything about this but I am interested in the forensic chemistry. I'll do some research and get back to you.

Of note, I don't claim to be an expert... I am an anti-expert. But I learn quick and can figure out complicated scientific concepts. If you disagree or feel that I am wrong, please feel free to correct me or disagree. Not a big deal. Just please don't attack my character or intentions.

[Callafangers]

Just please don't attack my character or intentions.

Your integrity has already been 100% exposed as non-existent, here. Your attempts at 'gaslighting' -- to suggest everyone who has plainly observed this is wrong or mistaken -- will remain ineffective.

[ConfusedJew]

OK, I'm doing preliminary research here. I imagine that I won't get to the perfect answer immediately but we can go back and forth until we either agree or figure out what we disagree with and why. If you are OK with that, we shall proceed.

The dialectical method refers originally to dialogue between people holding different points of view about a subject but wishing to arrive at the truth through reasoned argument. Dialectic resembles debate, but the concept excludes subjective elements such as emotional appeal and rhetoric. It has its origins in ancient philosophy and continued to be developed in the Middle Ages.

Claim 1: The lack of Prussian Blue staining on the walls of Krema II proves that mass gassings did not take place.

Rebuttal: Prussian Blue (ferric ferrocyanide) is not a reliable marker for cyanide exposure in this particular case. Prussian Blue only forms when iron ions and cyanide interact under specific conditions. It requires a specific pH, exposure time, humidity, and surface type. If you disagree or don't know about that, I can look into it further.

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.

Claim 2: The Polish forensic team intentionally omitted total cyanide measurements in order to obscure findings.

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. They explicitly stated that Prussian Blue is not a suitable measure for short term cyanide exposure like that in homicidal gassings.

Have you found any evidence that specifically shows they suppressed or were dishonest with the study?

Claim 3: Long-term stable residues (like Prussian Blue) are more trustworthy than short-lived compounds in determining past cyanide exposure.

This claim reverses the forensic relationship.

Forensic analysis focuses on the relevant markers for a specific event. Prussian Blue is only formed under certain prolonged exposure conditions which did not apply to gas chamber killings.

Short-term, low-concentration cyanide exposure, which would be used in homicidal gassings, would leave behind different chemical traces that are harder to detect over time.

Modern forensic toxicology recognizes the exposure context. Basically, the absence of Prussian Blue is not evidence of absence of cyanide use.

[ConfusedJew]

Your integrity has already been 100% exposed as non-existent, here. Your attempts at 'gaslighting' -- to suggest everyone who has plainly observed this is wrong or mistaken -- will remain ineffective.

Please don't contribute or respond to discussions that I'm in if you are going to behave like that.

[Callafangers]

Your integrity has already been 100% exposed as non-existent, here. Your attempts at 'gaslighting' -- to suggest everyone who has plainly observed this is wrong or mistaken -- will remain ineffective.

Please don't contribute or respond to discussions that I'm in if you are going to behave like that.

More theatrics. Did you rub your hands together right before/after you typed that?

[ConfusedJew]

Your integrity has already been 100% exposed as non-existent, here. Your attempts at 'gaslighting' -- to suggest everyone who has plainly observed this is wrong or mistaken -- will remain ineffective.

Please don't contribute or respond to discussions that I'm in if you are going to behave like that.

More theatrics. Did you rub your hands together right before/after you typed that?

Don't expect me to respond to you again on this forum. Have a good summer.

[Callafangers]

More theatrics. Did you rub your hands together right before/after you typed that?

Don't expect me to respond to you again on this forum. Have a good summer.

Even more theatrics. Yes, we'll both enjoy your relentless scheming all summer long.

[HansHill]

OK, I'm doing preliminary research here. I imagine that I won't get to the perfect answer immediately but we can go back and forth until we either agree or figure out what we disagree with and why. If you are OK with that, we shall proceed.

This is perfectly acceptable to me, however I must warn you before we begin I can say with almost 100% certainty this is all AI output. I don't say this to disparage you but to warn you;

Do you think I haven't "debated" against ChatGPT before? I have already had ChatGPT admit to me that gassings are not supported under the physical conditions observable. You might counter that ChatGPT is biased dependent on the types of inputs it receives, and yes that is understandable but that works against you also - in that the training data it is pulling from is overwhelmingly censored against my position or guardrailed against delivering my position honestly. If I detect this, I will ask you to deviate from the AI responses and explore the material directly yourself.

The dialectical method refers originally to dialogue between people holding different points of view about a subject but wishing to arrive at the truth through reasoned argument. Dialectic resembles debate, but the concept excludes subjective elements such as emotional appeal and rhetoric. It has its origins in ancient philosophy and continued to be developed in the Middle Ages.

Claim 1: The lack of Prussian Blue staining on the walls of Krema II proves that mass gassings did not take place.

Rebuttal: Prussian Blue (ferric ferrocyanide) is not a reliable marker for cyanide exposure in this particular case. Prussian Blue only forms when iron ions and cyanide interact under specific conditions. It requires a specific pH, exposure time, humidity, and surface type. If you disagree or don't know about that, I can look into it further.

Yes I disagree with this premise. It must be shown which parameter(s) was unsuitable for the formation of Prussian Blue, and why. Your AI mentioned pH, exposure time (see below), humidity and surface type (material?) - I'm happy for you to take any one of these and explain why this parameter was an impediment to Prussian Blue forming in Krema II. Since pH was the first one it mentioned, please start there. Why did the pH of Krema II prevent the formation of Prussian Blue?

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.

Claim 2: The Polish forensic team intentionally omitted total cyanide measurements in order to obscure findings.

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. They explicitly stated that Prussian Blue is not a suitable measure for short term cyanide exposure like that in homicidal gassings.

Have you found any evidence that specifically shows they suppressed or were dishonest with the study?

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.

Claim 3: Long-term stable residues (like Prussian Blue) are more trustworthy than short-lived compounds in determining past cyanide exposure.

This claim reverses the forensic relationship.

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

Forensic analysis focuses on the relevant markers for a specific event. Prussian Blue is only formed under certain prolonged exposure conditions which did not apply to gas chamber killings.

Short-term, low-concentration cyanide exposure, which would be used in homicidal gassings, would leave behind different chemical traces that are harder to detect over time.

"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.

Modern forensic toxicology recognizes the exposure context. Basically, the absence of Prussian Blue is not evidence of absence of cyanide use.

We are right back to the start, at asking "why?" - your LLM has attempted to close loop without actually addressing it.

[Archie]

Claim 1: The lack of Prussian Blue staining on the walls of Krema II proves that mass gassings did not take place.

Rebuttal: Prussian Blue (ferric ferrocyanide) is not a reliable marker for cyanide exposure in this particular case. Prussian Blue only forms when iron ions and cyanide interact under specific conditions. It requires a specific pH, exposure time, humidity, and surface type. If you disagree or don't know about that, I can look into it further.

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.

I would not say that lack of Prussian blue all by itself 100% disproves the mass gassing with Zyklon story. But it is undeniably evidence against the story. Germar Rudolf's book goes into great length on the question of what conditions are needed for Prussian blue to form. Recently constructed underground cellars very likely would have been ideal.

Your argument (presumably copied from AI) is that 1) the gas chambers used a lower concentration than the delousing chambers, 2) The gassings were short and the ventilation was super efficient meaning the exposure period was not that long.

The concentration argument is something that they made up in the late 80s only AFTER revisionists pointed out the Prussian blue problem. The argument is that the toxicology literature says 300 ppm is fatal for humans, and they just that this must have been the exact exposure that was used. This is a bogus argument because 1) Achieving the absolute theoretical minimum for all the gassing would require some effort, 2) There is no evidence the Germans were targeting 300 ppm, 3) US gas chambers that used HCN used a much higher concentration (over 3,000 ppm), 4) there are zero testimonies that support this 300 ppm figure. In fact, most of the testimony suggest that they did not calculate very carefully and used multiple cans, 5) Even if it was 300 ppm (which again they made up in desperation in the late 1980s) there's no evidence that that amount would be insufficient for Prussian blue to form.

You other argument is about the exposure period. This is another BS argument that they made up only AFTER the Prussian blue problem was pointed out. First of all, Zyklon pellets do not release all the gas immediately.



To deal with this problem, what they claim is that there were these special columns ("Kula columns") that they used to remove the pellets in the middle of the gassing. Never mind for a minute how idiotic this procedure would be (in the US gas chambers, they dissolve the HCN tablets in acid to accelerate the release and use ammonia to stop the reaction). There's no actual, hard evidence that these columns existed. It's based on testimonies. I.e., STORIES. You won't find any mention of these Kula columns in older histories.

The other problem here is that the ventilation would not have been anywhere near as efficient as you are claiming even with these mythical Kula columns. The "gas chambers" in fact had ventilation systems that were absolutely typical for a morgue (which is what those rooms actually were).
viewtopic.php?t=162

Moreover, even if we are generous and assume the rooms were ventilated within an hour or two, it's still not a given that this would be insufficient for Prussian blue to form.

I disagree with your claim that Prussian blue is "not a reliable marker for cyanide exposure." If it is present, this is an extremely reliable indicator. For a negative result, the matter is a bit more complicated, but if there were present some condition that inhibited the formation of PB, then you need to say what those conditions were. You threw out failed arguments to explain this.

[ConfusedJew]

This is perfectly acceptable to me, however I must warn you before we begin I can say with almost 100% certainty this is all AI output. I don't say this to disparage you but to warn you;

Do you think I haven't "debated" against ChatGPT before? I have already had ChatGPT admit to me that gassings are not supported under the physical conditions observable. You might counter that ChatGPT is biased dependent on the types of inputs it receives, and yes that is understandable but that works against you also - in that the training data it is pulling from is overwhelmingly censored against my position or guardrailed against delivering my position honestly. If I detect this, I will ask you to deviate from the AI responses and explore the material directly yourself.

That's fine. I used ChatGPT to research but I wrote in my own language. We may reach the limits of ChatGPT fairly quickly in which case I can explore the specifics on my own. I don't hide that which should reveal good faith to some degree.

If we stick to scientific principles and facts and arguments, it doesn't matter where the arguments come from.

I will respond to this stuff later. I've never debated about chemical evidence before so I'm interested in taking this as far as we can go.

Thank you for the way in which you are approaching this.

[Archie]

That's fine. I used ChatGPT to research but I wrote in my own language. We may reach the limits of ChatGPT fairly quickly in which case I can explore the specifics on my own. I don't hide that which should reveal good faith to some degree.

If we stick to scientific principles and facts and arguments, it doesn't matter where the arguments come from.

I will respond to this stuff later. I've never debated about chemical evidence before so I'm interested in taking this as far as we can go.

Thank you for the way in which you are approaching this.

ChatGPT is mostly just summarizing Wikipedia and various Google results for you. All secondary sources. The tech companies as a matter policy exclude revisionist material from Wikipedia, Google, etc., so "out of the box" the LLMs will tell you the Holocaust is true and supported by abundant evidence. This issue is that this is way too superficial to settle the things that we are discussing which require highly specific knowledge and original research of primary sources. It makes a quite a few mistakes on the particulars, often because it does not even have access to the actual sources, just what people might be *saying* online about those sources (with revisionist perspectives deliberately excluded). It does better if you directly feed it the relevant data, teach it, and correct it, but the problem is that it doesn't retain this knowledge very long and will soon revert to the "out of the box" superficial level of knowledge.

[ConfusedJew]

Claim 1: The lack of Prussian Blue staining on the walls of Krema II proves that mass gassings did not take place.

Rebuttal: Prussian Blue (ferric ferrocyanide) is not a reliable marker for cyanide exposure in this particular case. Prussian Blue only forms when iron ions and cyanide interact under specific conditions. It requires a specific pH, exposure time, humidity, and surface type. If you disagree or don't know about that, I can look into it further.

Yes I disagree with this premise. It must be shown which parameter(s) was unsuitable for the formation of Prussian Blue, and why. Your AI mentioned pH, exposure time (see below), humidity and surface type (material?) - I'm happy for you to take any one of these and explain why this parameter was an impediment to Prussian Blue forming in Krema II. Since pH was the first one it mentioned, please start there. Why did the pH of Krema II prevent the formation of Prussian Blue?

The formation of Prussian Blue requires alkaline or neutral pH. Under acidic conditions, hydrogen cyanide (HCN) remains volatile and less reactive with iron compounds and HCN tends to evaporate rather than form stable cyanide salts.

Krema II walls were made of concrete, which initially has a high pH (~12) due to the calcium hydroxide in cement.
However, over time, and especially in damp, enclosed environments like morgues or gas chambers, carbonation (CO₂ from air + water + concrete) lowers the surface pH by forming calcium carbonate. This process can reduce the surface pH to around 8 or even lower, especially in porous, wet environments.

Furthermore, the acidic nature of the victims’ bodily fluids, urine, and decomposition gases could further acidify the chamber surface over time, pushing the pH below the ideal range for Prussian Blue formation.

[ConfusedJew]

ChatGPT is mostly just summarizing Wikipedia and various Google results for you. All secondary sources. The tech companies as a matter policy exclude revisionist material from Wikipedia, Google, etc., so "out of the box" the LLMs will tell you the Holocaust is true and supported by abundant evidence. This issue is that this is way too superficial to settle the things that we are discussing which require highly specific knowledge and original research of primary sources. It makes a quite a few mistakes on the particulars, often because it does not even have access to the actual sources, just what people might be *saying* online about those sources (with revisionist perspectives deliberately excluded). It does better if you directly feed it the relevant data, teach it, and correct it, but the problem is that it doesn't retain this knowledge very long and will soon revert to the "out of the box" superficial level of knowledge.

It can think for itself. Few people appreciate that. I've had it design cutting edge science experiments.

If we get to the point where it gets stuck, I'll be happy to go deeper but this just makes things much faster.

I'll look at the original research. You can even feed it the actual sources if they are digital.

If you keep it all in the same query or project, it remembers things. I think it has started to remember things across queries too, in that it has a built in memory function, but I haven't tested it yet.

[ConfusedJew]

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.