Markiewicz Report in 1994

[HansHill]

Well, I suppose you are giving yourself an out then since we have no means of rigorously surveying normie opinion on this point.

Its actually worse than this - it is an explicit statement that not only are the masses bamboozled by Holocaust contradictions and cannot be trusted to apply good judgement to the situation, but that this is de facto required and expected of them, enough to stake a wager on them not figuring it out.

What a strange way to come here and defend the Holocaust!

[bombsaway]

I don't join niche, information-dense communities and bet against their combined knowledge. So don't worry, you won't be getting any of my money.

My bet was not on your knowledge but whether people outside your forum would care and would believe that discrepancy materially altered the credibility of the witnesses. They most certainly would not. Please just drop this, it is a total derailment of this thread. You are welcome to make a new thread about what would be expected or not expected of witnesses who endured an atrocity like the Holocaust but this is not the thread for that discussion.

Well, I suppose you are giving yourself an out then since we have no means of rigorously surveying normie opinion on this point.

Obviously the question of whether certain "inconsistencies" are major or minor will be a matter of judgment. Your side always dismisses everything as minor. Because you have to. You can see this very clearly with Nessie who will shamelessly pick and choose bits that match the current story and declare these to be "corroboration" while dismissing all the contradictions and absurdities as "minor" or normal" no matter how extreme. See for example this thread about star witness Vrba fabricating a three page description of a fictitious Himmler visit which Nessie excuses as "getting the dates wrong."

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=69

You cannot categorially assume that all the errors are minor. You are free to think revisionists are too harsh at times, but I try to reasonable about this, i.e., I do not look for one small error in order to conclude the entire account is false. What I do is for sake of argument I initially take the statements to be honest and accurate accounts of something that actually happened in physical reality. Then I follow the implications through to see where that leads us. It leads to the conclusion that most of the stories are not based in fact.

Imo, the question of whether the pellets were left to remain in the chamber or were removed during the gassing is a pretty basic one. I would expect people who supposedly worked in the "gas chamber" to know this, especially if it was their regular job, and especially given that it would be a major consideration in the ventilation and clean-up operation.

I think the issue is the belief among revs that these errors discredit the testimonies. Errors are problematic no doubt and reduce probative value, but it's a binary for you. The testimonies either have probative value or they don't. It's a binary way of thinking which extends to the pellets. The pellets either stayed in the columns or were all dumped on the floor it seems. None of the smaller ones could have fallen through the mesh. Children think like this.

[Stubble]

Bottom line, somebody is lying, either the sonderkommando, or the mainline history.

I suppose one could say that at different times, different methods were used, and that would be fair, except that you have a sonderkommando, namely Muller, saying the columns worked as a seed spreader evenly distributing the pellets in the death chamber, and you have others saying that the columns dropped the pellets in a pile on the floor.

These are people who supposedly have foundational knowledge of the operation, because they worked in the death chamber daily for months, and they can't even agree what the columns were made of or how they worked...

Again, the gassing story has all the hallmarks of atrocity propaganda, it is equal parts believable and absurd, and it is highly detailed and also opaque exactly when and where it needs to be.

[Callafangers]

I think the issue is the belief among revs that these errors discredit the testimonies. Errors are problematic no doubt and reduce probative value, but it's a binary for you. The testimonies either have probative value or they don't. It's a binary way of thinking which extends to the pellets. The pellets either stayed in the columns or were all dumped on the floor it seems. None of the smaller ones could have fallen through the mesh. Children think like this.

Exterminationists carry their position through feigned blindness when it comes to any possibility whatsoever of a coordinated lie, despite the fact that an unusually extensive pattern of obvious lies around a particularly motivated narrative is evidence of precisely that.

We do not have "errors" here, bombsaway, when the statements are made by people who should have necessarily each recalled with reasonable precision specific details and measurements that they spoke to, and this is all the more clear by the overall frequency of related inconsistencies, impossibilities, or improbabilities.

Do you think "resistance movements" did not consider the potential benefits of deceptive allegations against their enemies? Do you think Jews working as 'Sonderkommando' or in Kanada, etc., were not positioned to levy exactly that?

You have to keep pretending this pattern of inconsistencies/falsehoods or "errors" doesn't threaten your position... that's really all you can do. Shrug your shoulders, keep speaking the same slogans, and hope the rest of the world doesn't get more exposure to this debate, since it's obviously turned against you irreparably.

[HansHill]

I think the issue is the belief among revs that these errors discredit the testimonies. Errors are problematic no doubt and reduce probative value, but it's a binary for you. The testimonies either have probative value or they don't. It's a binary way of thinking which extends to the pellets. The pellets either stayed in the columns or were all dumped on the floor it seems. None of the smaller ones could have fallen through the mesh. Children think like this.

They have probative value as I indicated here:

WS is right - additionally, there are relatively few who give precision details on this exact aspect, so for us to be laser focused on what exactly they said is critical. This is the murder weapon after all.

Now, under our probative microscope, we can derive probative value from the claims, and identify some issues. These Sonderkommandos who were "there" when it was "happening" and "doing" the dirty work, say they all spilled out onto the floor. Van Pelt designed a fully sealed column.

We have already made probative progress, because we have identified two mutually exclusive claims, and one set of claims must be discarded. Big Holocaust has decided to eliminate the claims of the Sonderkommandos to adhere to the minimal-exposure-time. I suspect Confused Jew, being a Jew (and confused), finds this very distasteful. To look a survivor in the eye and tell him his story is wrong, all because the Holocaust 2.0 patch was deployed by Van Pelt & others with high IQ and letters after their names.

None of the smaller ones could have fallen through the mesh.

This is bizarre. Kula describes it as being a very fine mesh of 0.1cm. But hey if we are out here disregarding the story as told by those who were "there", then great. Wayward "smaller ones" spilling out onto the floor with any kind of regularity = more offgassing at the end of the day, and further rules out any attempt at attaining <30mins exposure time.

[bombsaway]

I think the issue is the belief among revs that these errors discredit the testimonies. Errors are problematic no doubt and reduce probative value, but it's a binary for you. The testimonies either have probative value or they don't. It's a binary way of thinking which extends to the pellets. The pellets either stayed in the columns or were all dumped on the floor it seems. None of the smaller ones could have fallen through the mesh. Children think like this.

Exterminationists carry their position through feigned blindness when it comes to any possibility whatsoever of a coordinated lie, despite the fact that an unusually extensive pattern of obvious lies around a particularly motivated narrative is evidence of precisely that.

We do not have "errors" here, bombsaway, when the statements are made by people who should have necessarily each recalled with reasonable precision specific details and measurements that they spoke to, and this is all the more clear by the overall frequency of related inconsistencies, impossibilities, or improbabilities.

Do you think "resistance movements" did not consider the potential benefits of deceptive allegations against their enemies? Do you think Jews working as 'Sonderkommando' or in Kanada, etc., were not positioned to levy exactly that?

You have to keep pretending this pattern of inconsistencies/falsehoods or "errors" doesn't threaten your position... that's really all you can do. Shrug your shoulders, keep speaking the same slogans, and hope the rest of the world doesn't get more exposure to this debate, since it's obviously turned against you irreparably.

Necessarily is a super important word here, your entire argument rests on this. This is what I disagree with.

[bombsaway]

I think the issue is the belief among revs that these errors discredit the testimonies. Errors are problematic no doubt and reduce probative value, but it's a binary for you. The testimonies either have probative value or they don't. It's a binary way of thinking which extends to the pellets. The pellets either stayed in the columns or were all dumped on the floor it seems. None of the smaller ones could have fallen through the mesh. Children think like this.

They have probative value as I indicated here:

WS is right - additionally, there are relatively few who give precision details on this exact aspect, so for us to be laser focused on what exactly they said is critical. This is the murder weapon after all.

Now, under our probative microscope, we can derive probative value from the claims, and identify some issues. These Sonderkommandos who were "there" when it was "happening" and "doing" the dirty work, say they all spilled out onto the floor. Van Pelt designed a fully sealed column.

We have already made probative progress, because we have identified two mutually exclusive claims, and one set of claims must be discarded. Big Holocaust has decided to eliminate the claims of the Sonderkommandos to adhere to the minimal-exposure-time. I suspect Confused Jew, being a Jew (and confused), finds this very distasteful. To look a survivor in the eye and tell him his story is wrong, all because the Holocaust 2.0 patch was deployed by Van Pelt & others with high IQ and letters after their names.

None of the smaller ones could have fallen through the mesh.

This is bizarre. Kula describes it as being a very fine mesh of 0.1cm. But hey if we are out here disregarding the story as told by those who were "there", then great. Wayward "smaller ones" spilling out onto the floor with any kind of regularity = more offgassing at the end of the day, and further rules out any attempt at attaining <30mins exposure time.

Child thinking. If even 5% got out they wouldn't materially be dangerous or prevent the chamber from being cleared of gas.

"they all spilled"

post the testimony that describes them all spilling. If you can do this I'll cede the argument and admit it is major problem in that testimony at least.

[Wetzelrad]

Allow me to respond to some of the statements that have gone unchallenged in this thread. Hopefully ConfusedJew will not consider it derailment for me to respond to the things he has written here.

We're going to have to look at the sensitivity of the different tests to really be able to compare and contrast results across samples. Markiewicz took that into consideration. Have you guys thought about that yet?

I think this is a good idea. Let's look at Markiewicz et al's method. In his paper he wrote that he used Epstein's method, citing "Estimation of Microquantities of Cyanide" by Joseph Epstein, published in 1947. It's this paper:
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/ac60004a018

Epstein wrote that his method could measure cyanide to as low as 0.2 micrograms per milliliter. His exact words to describe his weakest test solution were that it "contained 0.2 [...] micrograms per ml of cyanide ion" in water. This establishes 0.00002% as the lower threshold of detection.

Why, then, did Markiewicz give results as low as 16 micrograms per kilogram? That is 0.0000016%, well below Epstein's threshold. Markiewicz gave many concentrations in that range, like those which were meant to prove cyanide was found in Block 11.

His lowest findings above zero were 0.0000004%. Do you believe this spectrophotometric method is valid to differentiate between the 0.0000004% of some samples and the 0.0000000% of others?

Do you concede the point that testing for Prussian Blue was not necessary or even useful? If you do think it was important, we will just debate that, I don't want to leave any stone unturned.

No one should concede this because of course testing for all cyanide is necessary. Prussian Blue in minute quantities is as invisible as any other chemical, so of course it has to be tested for even where it cannot be seen.

The most recent study addresses many, if not all, of Rudolf's arguments. Have there been any more recent arguments or rebuttals since this 1994 study?

You seem especially confused here. Since the paper was published in 1994 it certainly cannot respond to any of what Rudolf has written from 1995-2025. Markiewicz referenced but barely responded to any part of Rudolf's work. Instead of responding to Rudolf he included wild claims about blue paint and sunlight exposure, arguments which most parties now agree are invalid.

Dario Gabbai - "Once the gas chambers were cleared out they had to be hosed down from all traces of blood and quickly white-washed with quick-dry paint. This step was crucial and done after each transport to keep up the deception so that the next batch of victims would not suspect that they were about to be gassed. The whole process took between 2-3 hours each time."

https://www.normandy1944.info/holocaust ... ach%20time

Hydrogen cyanide gas does not cause bleeding, so any claim of blood could only come from unspecified physical trauma. There should not have been any blood on the walls. The idea of washing and painting the room after every use also defies all sense and logic. I'm surprised you find this account credible.

Post mortem effects of bodies that were killed from cyanide poisoning show foam at the mouth or nose and bleeding. As the brain dies from lack of oxygen (asphyxiation), control over muscles—including those controlling the bladder and bowels—is lost. This leads to urination and defecation at or shortly after death. Victims often vomited due to panic, trauma, or the effects of the gas itself. Zyklon B (hydrogen cyanide) is a cellular poison that can cause nausea, dizziness, and convulsions before death. People gagged, choked, and coughed up saliva or mucus, which accumulated on the floor and bodies.

You have no basis on which to assert this. There are no cases of foaming, bleeding, or vomiting in hydrogen cyanide gassings outside Nazi Germany. These are not known symptoms of cyanide gas. Possibly something like foam could occur from respiratory distress, but this is not documented anywhere.

It is obvious that hydrogen cyanide would never have been used as an execution gas in the U.S. if it caused bleeding and vomiting.

Forensic research found significant cyanide residues (including Prussian blue) in delousing chamber walls, mostly in surface layers but in the alleged gas chambers, lower concentrations were found, limited mostly to outer millimeters.

Which research, exactly, tested for cyanide residue at different depths in the walls? Are you referring to Germar Rudolf's research?

Homicidal gassings lasted only 20–30 minutes per cycle.

This means that the gas would have been released and fully ventilated within 30 minutes, an impossible task.

Prussian blue formation is a slow process and generally requires prolonged exposure to both cyanide and iron ions. Delousing chambers, in contrast, had hours-long exposures and no washing, allowing buildup and slow formation over time.

Revisionists are too honest to do this, but what is to stop them from making the same wild assertions about delousing as Jews do for homicidal gassing? For example, how do you know that the delousing chambers:
- ran for hours instead of only minutes?
- were not washed and painted after every use?
- didn't have their Zyklon pellets removed just moments after introducing them?
- didn't have a special ventilation system to remove the gas within five minutes?
- were ever used more than once?
- were not built or coated with some highly cyanide-resistant material?

Et cetera. The answer is that you don't. It is only because revisionists are not serial liars that you don't have to provide contrary evidence for these things. But when your historical method allows for imagining facts not in evidence, misinterpreting facts that are in evidence, and cherrypicking whichever pieces of witness testimony you like, then you can build any case you like around any building in the camp.

Carbon monoxide (CO) was used earlier, especially during the Aktion T4 "euthanasia" program and then later at Operation Reinhard camps (Bełżec, Sobibór, Treblinka).
[...]
Additionally, CO requires combustion engines running continuously, with proper seals to prevent leakage. HCN, once released in a sealed room, required no active machinery to maintain a fatal concentration. Zyklon B did not require fuel, engine parts, or mobile gassing vans.

You assert that the reason HCN was used instead of CO is that CO requires an engine running. This is false since CO was sold in cylinders at that time. Your argument does however call into question the designs of the alleged CO gas chambers.

People would have projectile vomited all over the walls so the walls would have needed to be cleaned to some extent obviously.

Based on what evidence? I suspect this is you and your AI being creative. If the hypothetical victims would vomit at all, it's highly unlikely that it would project all over the walls.

It only takes ~5-30 minutes for HCN to diffuse 1–2 cm into plaster or cement based on diffusion models for gases in porous media (Fick’s second law). For a 10 cm thick wall, diffusion to the midpoint could take 1–2 hours at 300 ppm and 20°C.
In short exposures (15–30 minutes), HCN penetrates only a few millimeters to 1–2 cm, leaving trace residues if ventilated quickly. We also need to figure out how thick the walls were.

Significant penetration (e.g., 10–20 cm) and formation of stable cyanide compounds like Prussian blue require prolonged exposure (hours) or repeated gassings, especially in moist conditions. For example, delousing chambers exposed to HCN for 12–24 hours at high concentrations (10,000–20,000 ppm) show deep blue staining and residues up to 10 cm.

While I agree that repeated gassings could lead to formation of Prussian Blue, I question the facts here. What is the basis for claiming 20,000 ppm of HCN was used at the bathhouse delousing chambers? The recommended range for disinfestation then was 7,000-10,000 ppm. There is also nothing that indicates these same "high concentrations" would not be used in the alleged homicidal gas chambers, and much that indicates they were, like Rudolf Hoess's confessions.

[Callafangers]

Exterminationists carry their position through feigned blindness when it comes to any possibility whatsoever of a coordinated lie, despite the fact that an unusually extensive pattern of obvious lies around a particularly motivated narrative is evidence of precisely that.

We do not have "errors" here, bombsaway, when the statements are made by people who should have necessarily each recalled with reasonable precision specific details and measurements that they spoke to, and this is all the more clear by the overall frequency of related inconsistencies, impossibilities, or improbabilities.
[...]

Necessarily is a super important word here, your entire argument rests on this. This is what I disagree with.

Wrong -- your argument rests on it necessarily not being the case that these 'witnesses' should have made reasonably consistent statements. It is a fact that their statements are unusually inconsistent, especially for observations they would have encountered numerous times and dealt with intimately, often for months or longer, day in and day out.

My statement that these people should have necessarily recalled with reasonable precision specific details and measurements is self-evident -- "reasonable precision" is not an extreme, unrealistic threshold; it is a bare minimum and any significant number of actual, credible eyewitnesses should be able to meet this standard, as is the case in every true historical event in history.

Moreover, even if it is only more likely (rather than necessarily) the case that these people should have recalled with reasonable precision... this still works heavily against your favor.

You can 'disagree' all you want (CJ does this, too) -- your biased (and sometimes dishonest) 'disagreement' doesn't put a dent in the evidence and valid interpretations thereof.

Big fail.

[HansHill]

Child thinking. If even 5% got out they wouldn't materially be dangerous or prevent the chamber from being cleared of gas.

This 5% gimmick is yours dude, don't drag me into this human-hallucination of yours I'm investigating the claims as presented.

"they all spilled"

post the testimony that describes them all spilling. If you can do this I'll cede the argument and admit it is major problem in that testimony at least.

[Greif] Did the grid column through which the gas was dropped reach all the way down to the floor?

[Chazan] Nearly to the floor. One had left a space which made it possible to clean there. One poured water out and brushed up the remaining pebbles.”

G. Greif, Wir weinten tränenlos… Augenzeugenberichte der jüdischen “Sonderkommandos” in Auschwitz, Böhlau Verlag, Cologne/Weimar/Vienna 1985, p. 237.

An incomplete column no affixed or adjoining the floor = the pellets either hovered in mid air or hit the floor

I mean you could argue one got stuck in the mesh on the way down? But now you're simply human-hallucinating again.

[SanityCheck]

[Greif] Did the grid column through which the gas was dropped reach all the way down to the floor?

[Chazan] Nearly to the floor. One had left a space which made it possible to clean there. One poured water out and brushed up the remaining pebbles.”

G. Greif, Wir weinten tränenlos… Augenzeugenberichte der jüdischen “Sonderkommandos” in Auschwitz, Böhlau Verlag, Cologne/Weimar/Vienna 1985, p. 237.

This answers the question of what happened with the pellets, so several previous pages of bickering are now moot.

[HansHill]

[Greif] Did the grid column through which the gas was dropped reach all the way down to the floor?

[Chazan] Nearly to the floor. One had left a space which made it possible to clean there. One poured water out and brushed up the remaining pebbles.”

G. Greif, Wir weinten tränenlos… Augenzeugenberichte der jüdischen “Sonderkommandos” in Auschwitz, Böhlau Verlag, Cologne/Weimar/Vienna 1985, p. 237.

This answers the question of what happened with the pellets, so several previous pages of bickering are now moot.

Thank you Dr, i can go back to muting this thread and half of its participants now.

[bombsaway]

It is a fact that their statements are unusually inconsistent,

So you have compared Holocaust statements to statements concerning similar events?

[Greif] Did the grid column through which the gas was dropped reach all the way down to the floor?

[Chazan] Nearly to the floor. One had left a space which made it possible to clean there. One poured water out and brushed up the remaining pebbles.”

G. Greif, Wir weinten tränenlos… Augenzeugenberichte der jüdischen “Sonderkommandos” in Auschwitz, Böhlau Verlag, Cologne/Weimar/Vienna 1985, p. 237.

This answers the question of what happened with the pellets, so several previous pages of bickering are now moot.

I think it's not clear from this that ALL the pellets escaped, other witnesses say the pellets were raised and removed that way?

The mesh wouldn't necessarily need be completely open at the bottom. The collumns 'legs' could descend to the ground beyond the receptacle.

[Archie]

I think the issue is the belief among revs that these errors discredit the testimonies. Errors are problematic no doubt and reduce probative value, but it's a binary for you. The testimonies either have probative value or they don't. It's a binary way of thinking which extends to the pellets. The pellets either stayed in the columns or were all dumped on the floor it seems. None of the smaller ones could have fallen through the mesh. Children think like this.

This is classic bombsaway right here.

A normal reply to this would be something like this: "Maybe when they talked about pellets being swept up off the floor they were talking about a few errant pellets that got through the mesh?" This would be an attempt to harmonize the contradiction. If someone wants to make that argument, whatever. But notice how bombs never makes arguments in this straightforward manner. Note that he sneaks his key assumption in without comment, takes it as given, and implies that you are an idiot if you don't agree with him. What we end up with is a vague, implicit argument along with passive-aggressive insults as a means of manipulation. I do not think this is an honest style of argumentation. The reason he does this is obviously because if he were to simply state his assumptions and arguments clearly it would be more obvious how weak they are.

I will point out here that CJ actually did not challenge Hans's interpretation of the the testimonies.
https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.ph ... 39&#p13128
CJ says that it is a minor discrepancy whether the pellets remained in the columns and were removed or if they were on the floor. I think we can all agree that he is wrong about this, and you also implicitly seem to disagree with CJ since you switched to a different argument.

Hans referred to two witnesses here, Chazan and Phlishko.
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=3052&#p3052

And here is Germar's summary of this.
https://holocaustencyclopedia.com/techn ... vices/948/

[ConfusedJew]

I'm not positive but it seems like they installed the mesh columns so that they could pull up the pellets safely and expedite the process. That's my working hypothesis.

How are you "not positive"? You came here to defend something you don't know?

You've seen what the sonderkommandos said. You've seen what the experts said. Now shit or get off the pot.

That's not how forensic analysis works.