ConfusedJew wrote: ↑Mon Jul 28, 2025 7:42 pm
I looked at this more closely and I think I see what you are saying.....
....I can look into this more closely.....
But earlier you were presented with the evidence
twice, rejected it out of hand both times, and come back to call us ridiculous?
I'll look at the sensitivity and methods of the tests but first will you at least answer these questions:
Do you agree that homicidal gassings could have occurred in that room and there would be zero traces of cyanide after the chemicals degraded?
Hypothetically yes, they could have. For this to happen, it would need to be demonstrated what the negating factor was. This shouldn't be difficult for someone on the Orthodox side to do.
How much cyanide would you expect to find in a homicidal gas chamber and how long would you expect it to last?
All current and known models of the kinetics & chemistry involved, predict levels in the same order of magnitude as is present in non-homicidal gas chambers made from the same materials. We argue it should be
equal or slightly higher given the excess moisture caused by condensation from victims breathing. That is the best working model we currently have and it has survived against all known tests and rigours.
Do you think Prussian Blue would have definitely formed in a homicidal gas chamber? Why or why not?
Again like above, according to the best known models of the kinetics and chemistry involved, yes it's formation is predicted under the conditions claimed. Its absence, while theoretically possible, would need to have been explained rigourously by now - and unfortunately its too late because people like you have made it illegal for the best minds to do so.
Even if there were small amounts of cyanide present in the room, decades later, do you think it's possible that a measurement might not have been sensitive enough to pick it up or may have looked in the wrong physical location for them?
Yes anything is possible, which is why it's important to build redundancy into studies like this. Both Leuchter and Rudolf built redundancy into their analyses with double blind testing of samples by separate independent institutes who each didn't know about the other, and vice versa.
Feel free to use AI to help you, I clearly don't mind. I've already gone through over 1,000 pages worth of material to understand this issue so it's really not intellectually honest to criticize me for using AI to help with it. Get over the fact that I might miss stuff or there might be some errors.
I don't need AI confused jew, in fact AI would be detrimental to my arguments because it will produce slop. I've been doing this some years, people like Callafangers, Nazgul, Hektor and Scott for decades, Archie and others are somewhat similar around a decade. Everything I answered you above was from my own brain and sometimes quick glances to material by my side. This means sometimes I can be wrong, but if i am wrong, then I am wrong and not an AI machine. It feels liberating, you should try it.
