Forensic Chemistry

[Nessie]

Instead of trying to understand why we don't believe in the Holocaust, it would be better for you to explain what convinces you to believe it happened and prove by A + B that the evidence you find essential actually corresponds to the proposed narrative.

That has been done, multiple times, by the historians who have researched A-B. This is a list of links to primary evidence, documents, witnesses, forensics and circumstantial evidence, that corroborates and converges to prove mass gassings and cremations;

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... ce-on.html

"Transfer inventory of 24 June 1943 on “14 showers” and “1 gas tight door” in crematorium 3 [Pressac, Technique , p. 430]"

That document corroborates witness descriptions of gas chambers made to look like showers.

https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=82890

"The showers were fitted to small blocks of wood sealed into the concrete roof of the gas chamber. There were no pipes connected to these showers, from which no water ever flowed."

What has this got to do with forensic chemistry.

I am answering a question as to why I believe gassings took place inside the Kremas. That evidence proves there were gas chambers and it does not matter that some people cannot work out the forensic chemistry, to their satisfaction. That does not counter the evidence gassings happened. It just means they cannot work out how it happened.

[ConfusedJew]

My contention was that cyanide traces in the control samples were roughly equal to those in the supposed gas chambers. You offered "contamination from weathering, renovation, or debris" and adjacency as explanations for that. If you find these to be sufficient explanations for trace cyanides in the control samples, then surely they are also sufficient explanations for trace cyanides in the supposed gas chambers.

There are a handful of studies. Will you point me to where you saw the control samples were roughly equal to the supposed gas chambers? They won't all have the same exact measurements because a lot of factors differ from study to study including methodology, sensitivity of tools, and timing.

To the contrary, Leuchter, Rudolf, and Mattogno all took control samples that came back positive for trace cyanides. In all three cases their total cyanide content was actually higher than what Markiewicz measured by his method in any of his samples.

I need to look at this more closely. Will you provide me with more direction so that I don't have to look through every page of all these studies? Maybe providing a link and page number or chart reference?

You know nothing about the chain of custody in any of these investigations, but chain of custody is not even in dispute here so it's totally irrelevant.

Sample handling and collection methods matter forensically. I haven't looked into this for these studies but it is probably worth investigating.

You can keep asking your AI to say this as many times as you like, but nearby buildings have in fact been found to have cyanide readings of 1.2, 1.3, and 9.6 mg/kg.

Same as above. I'll be happy to look at these specifically.

[HansHill]

My contention was that cyanide traces in the control samples were roughly equal to those in the supposed gas chambers. You offered "contamination from weathering, renovation, or debris" and adjacency as explanations for that. If you find these to be sufficient explanations for trace cyanides in the control samples, then surely they are also sufficient explanations for trace cyanides in the supposed gas chambers.

There are a handful of studies. Will you point me to where you saw the control samples were roughly equal to the supposed gas chambers? They won't all have the same exact measurements because a lot of factors differ from study to study including methodology, sensitivity of tools, and timing.

They are posted in this thread multiple times.

To the contrary, Leuchter, Rudolf, and Mattogno all took control samples that came back positive for trace cyanides. In all three cases their total cyanide content was actually higher than what Markiewicz measured by his method in any of his samples.

I need to look at this more closely. Will you provide me with more direction so that I don't have to look through every page of all these studies? Maybe providing a link and page number or chart reference?

They are posted in this thread multiple times.

You know nothing about the chain of custody in any of these investigations, but chain of custody is not even in dispute here so it's totally irrelevant.

Sample handling and collection methods matter forensically. I haven't looked into this for these studies but it is probably worth investigating.

You can keep asking your AI to say this as many times as you like, but nearby buildings have in fact been found to have cyanide readings of 1.2, 1.3, and 9.6 mg/kg.

Same as above. I'll be happy to look at these specifically.

Same as above
They are posted in this thread multiple times.

In addition to all this being posted in this thread multiple times, they are in the book you acknowledged and said you read.

I'm flagging your post as needless repetition and time-wasting as well as dishonesty.

[ConfusedJew]

My contention was that cyanide traces in the control samples were roughly equal to those in the supposed gas chambers. You offered "contamination from weathering, renovation, or debris" and adjacency as explanations for that. If you find these to be sufficient explanations for trace cyanides in the control samples, then surely they are also sufficient explanations for trace cyanides in the supposed gas chambers.

There are a handful of studies. Will you point me to where you saw the control samples were roughly equal to the supposed gas chambers? They won't all have the same exact measurements because a lot of factors differ from study to study including methodology, sensitivity of tools, and timing.

They are posted in this thread multiple times.

To the contrary, Leuchter, Rudolf, and Mattogno all took control samples that came back positive for trace cyanides. In all three cases their total cyanide content was actually higher than what Markiewicz measured by his method in any of his samples.

I need to look at this more closely. Will you provide me with more direction so that I don't have to look through every page of all these studies? Maybe providing a link and page number or chart reference?

They are posted in this thread multiple times.

You know nothing about the chain of custody in any of these investigations, but chain of custody is not even in dispute here so it's totally irrelevant.

Sample handling and collection methods matter forensically. I haven't looked into this for these studies but it is probably worth investigating.

You can keep asking your AI to say this as many times as you like, but nearby buildings have in fact been found to have cyanide readings of 1.2, 1.3, and 9.6 mg/kg.

Same as above. I'll be happy to look at these specifically.

Same as above
They are posted in this thread multiple times.

In addition to all this being posted in this thread multiple times, they are in the book you acknowledged and said you read.

I'm flagging your post as needless repetition and time-wasting as well as dishonesty.

This thread has exploded to over 300 posts quickly and while I definitely didn't say that I read that book, I said that I skimmed it. To expect me to become experts in these thousands of pages that are being thrown at me is neither realistic nor good faith.

Since you guys are basically Holocaust denial scholars, it would take you less than 3 minutes to point me to information that would take me hours to otherwise find and organize.

[HansHill]

To expect me to become experts

Expect you to become an expert - nope
Expect you to read the responses people spent their time to provide you - yes

take me hours to otherwise find and organize.

...find and organize and ignore.
Fixed that for you.

[Stubble]

Since you guys are basically ... scholars, it would take you less than 3 minutes to point me to information that would take me hours to otherwise find and organize.

Increase your rigor.

[ConfusedJew]

To expect me to become experts

Expect you to become an expert - nope
Expect you to read the responses people spent their time to provide you - yes

take me hours to otherwise find and organize.

...find and organize and ignore.
Fixed that for you.

It takes me zero time to ignore.

It also takes about 8 seconds to send me a 300 page book and ask me to read it or watch a 2 hour movie, which has been requested of me many times on me.

If you want to have a debate, then it's fair to provide sources. The argument is fine, but I'm not going to search through a dozen papers to find a few charts that you could find in 3% of the time that it would take me.

You have an audience with a real live Jew who is willing to entertain your facts and arguments. Don't squander that opportunity!

[Stubble]

You have an audience with a real live [member of the opposition] who is willing to entertain your facts and arguments. Don't squander that opportunity!

I try to be patient, I really, really do. You do not assimilate new knowledge and you continue to make the same mistakes over and over. You also refuse to admit fault or responsibility.

At this point, I have turned to going to your model with your words and just arguing with the AI at the source and cutting out the middle man.

It has apologized to me for its inaccuracies and misrepresentations, it has tried to explain to me how they came about and it has promised to do better, to the best of its ability many times. It even offers me retractions and corrections to post here, but, that to me is not only sisyphean, but, a waste of forum space, so, I don't relay the message.

With the Pressac quote for example, when I made it go look up the pages and read them, that appeared to bring reality in to sharp focus for the AI and it claimed to understand how dishonest and harmful that was.

If the lesson took or not is hard to say, but, if your slop improves, then I will know it is trying.

[HansHill]

It takes me zero time to ignore.

It also takes about 8 seconds to send me a 300 page book and ask me to read it or watch a 2 hour movie, which has been requested of me many times on me.

If you want to have a debate, then it's fair to provide sources. The argument is fine, but I'm not going to search through a dozen papers to find a few charts that you could find in 3% of the time that it would take me.

You have an audience with a real live Jew who is willing to entertain your facts and arguments. Don't squander that opportunity!

Seems to me that you've got three options (assuming Wetzelrad or a Mod doesn't simply send you the figures again, that's up to them):

Option A: Believe Wetzelrad's argument above about the non-zero controls and seek out the information in this thread that has been provided to you by people who spent their valuable time to do so (me included).

Option B: Don't believe Wetzelrad's argument above about the non-zero controls and call him a liar (!)

Option C: Don't do anything / ignore all of this / follow some other random line of AI slop / continue about your business

None of those are particularly appealing to me, I guess option A is slightly preferable.... slightly? Not by much though, I'd say about 0.64ppm if i had to quantify it.

[Stubble]

It takes me zero time to ignore.

It also takes about 8 seconds to send me a 300 page book and ask me to read it or watch a 2 hour movie, which has been requested of me many times on me.

If you want to have a debate, then it's fair to provide sources. The argument is fine, but I'm not going to search through a dozen papers to find a few charts that you could find in 3% of the time that it would take me.

You have an audience with a real live Jew who is willing to entertain your facts and arguments. Don't squander that opportunity!

Seems to me that you've got three options (assuming Wetzelrad or a Mod doesn't simply send you the figures again, that's up to them):

Option A: Believe Wetzelrad's argument above about the non-zero controls and seek out the information in this thread that has been provided to you by people who spent their valuable time to do so (me included).

Option B: Don't believe Wetzelrad's argument above about the non-zero controls and call him a liar (!)

Option C: Don't do anything / ignore all of this / follow some other random line of AI slop / continue about your business

None of those are particularly appealing to me, I guess option A is slightly preferable.... slightly? Not by much though, I'd say about 0.64ppm if i had to quantify it.

PPM, or PPB?

[Wetzelrad]

There are a handful of studies. Will you point me to where you saw the control samples were roughly equal to the supposed gas chambers?

I agree with the others that this has already been provided repeatedly, but since you're asking, here's the most useful table for comparing numbers:
https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=463

You have an audience with a real live Jew who is willing to entertain your facts and arguments. Don't squander that opportunity!

What is this ridiculous attitude for? Do you think we haven't all argued with Jews before?

[HansHill]

There are a handful of studies. Will you point me to where you saw the control samples were roughly equal to the supposed gas chambers?

I agree with the others that this has already been provided repeatedly, but since you're asking, here's the most useful table for comparing numbers:
https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=463

You have an audience with a real live Jew who is willing to entertain your facts and arguments. Don't squander that opportunity!

What is this ridiculous attitude for? Do you think we haven't all argued with Jews before?

Fair use of that post I guess, and I can't deny that wasn't part of my rationale in posting it there, for future reference.

I just hope our resident moron doesn't start shitting up that thread too, if so I'll be reporting it for sure!

[TlsMS93]

What does the existence of showers help with in the Holocaust? I already know. Just because I don't know what helps doesn't mean it didn't have a purpose.

[ConfusedJew]

[quote=ConfusedJew post_id=14059 time=1754590529 user_id=263

Seems to me that you've got three options (assuming Wetzelrad or a Mod doesn't simply send you the figures again, that's up to them):

Option A: Believe Wetzelrad's argument above about the non-zero controls and seek out the information in this thread that has been provided to you by people who spent their valuable time to do so (me included).

Option B: Don't believe Wetzelrad's argument above about the non-zero controls and call him a liar (!)

Option C: Don't do anything / ignore all of this / follow some other random line of AI slop / continue about your business

None of those are particularly appealing to me, I guess option A is slightly preferable.... slightly? Not by much though, I'd say about 0.64ppm if i had to quantify it.

ChatGPT 5 is coming out today and will have significantly less hallucinations supposedly.

I don't accuse people of lying, even if I think they are, I will just demonstrate it by introducing whatever contradiction or impossibility that I find in their messages to sort it out more quickly. Ad hominem attacks general break down conversation.

I don't think he's misrepresenting the results. I am just not on top of the very important but small details of the studies. I would also expect different studies to have slightly different results as well for many good reasons.

[Stubble]

[quote=ConfusedJew post_id=14059 time=1754590529 user_id=263

Seems to me that you've got three options (assuming Wetzelrad or a Mod doesn't simply send you the figures again, that's up to them):

Option A: Believe Wetzelrad's argument above about the non-zero controls and seek out the information in this thread that has been provided to you by people who spent their valuable time to do so (me included).

Option B: Don't believe Wetzelrad's argument above about the non-zero controls and call him a liar (!)

Option C: Don't do anything / ignore all of this / follow some other random line of AI slop / continue about your business

None of those are particularly appealing to me, I guess option A is slightly preferable.... slightly? Not by much though, I'd say about 0.64ppm if i had to quantify it.

ChatGPT 5 is coming out today and will have significantly less hallucinations supposedly.

I don't accuse people of lying, even if I think they are, I will just demonstrate it by introducing whatever contradiction or impossibility that I find in their messages to sort it out more quickly. Ad hominem attacks general break down conversation.

I don't think he's misrepresenting the results. I am just not on top of the very important but small details of the studies. I would also expect different studies to have slightly different results as well for many good reasons.

The problem here, is that you do not honor or accept corrections.

/shrug

You also don't ever retract.