Flaws and Limitations in Chemistry of Auschwitz

[HansHill]

The detection limit is the same in both studies. From the second study:

"Secondly, the detection limit is the same. From the more up to date Under present circumstances we established the lower limit of determinability of cyanide ions at a level of 3-4 ,µg CN- in 1 kg of the sample."

First of all, I don't think you used the relevant measurement in the Epstein study but I can't access the whole thing so it is hard to tell what you are talking about. Secondly, samples were as high 288 which significantly exceed your 200 limit anyway.

That figure has to pertain to the same measurement technique that Markiewicz used and under the same conditions.

This is to say you can't access the paper? Why not? I thought you were a super serious science guy? I gave a screenshot showing the relevant passage, and a link above for you to read - Go read it and if you aren't banned for blatant dishonesty, come back to explain how this impacts your argument, and more importantly, why would Markiewicz misuse an established detection limit?

[ConfusedJew]

Midway through that exercise however, I saw that he pivoted to a new argument about the detection limit mis-applied by Markiewicz and so i immediately lost all of those examples because who cares! Te detection limit was a juicier line of reasoning anyway.

The detection limits and sensitivity of the measurement tools are at the crux of this disagreement. According to Markiewicz study, he clearly shows that he detected cyanide ions above the detection level while none at the controls.

For this argument to fail, you'd have to prove that the detection limit is too low and I'm still waiting for you to try to do that.

You could also prove that contamination happened.

If you can't do that, then you'd have to accept that Markiewicz is right.

If you can do that, it is still possible that all of the cyanide decomposed or evaporated.

[Stubble]

Even if we grant the study out of hand, which Germar has done, since he found iron blue, the results are not interpretable. They are not 'significant' or 'meaningful' and do not support the alleged 'criminal usage'.

This argument is incredibly silly and clown like in my opinion.

[HansHill]

Hang on, I think anybody here reading this will acknowledge i've been very accommodating and responsive to your various challenges and I've had very little from you in return. You've been prompted by myself and other posters here that you have unanswered questions in a growing backlog that need to be addressed, ranging from the reproducibility, to the double standard to which you hold Rudolf, and in my opinion the most important, Markiewicz's treatment of the detection limit. You also clearly didn't know about this faux pas of his, or else you wouldn't have so brazenly sleepwalked into it.

I think it's fair to say, if Rudolf mis-stated his detection limit by two orders of magnitude in a published paper, he would be laughed off the face of the planet, if not outright arrested.

I'm going to slow down my posting to allow you time to recap over your backlog (really its a prompt for you to stop being so disingenuous) and to create space for the other more experienced posters to jump in and address these points too in the event they have valuable contributions or I have missed something.

[Archie]

The detection limits and sensitivity of the measurement tools are at the crux of this disagreement. According to Markiewicz study, he clearly shows that he detected cyanide ions above the detection level while none at the controls.

Nonsense. All these miniscule trace readings from Markiewicz merely underscore the absurdity of his method which struggles to detect cyanide even in the disinfestation chambers.



Everyone agrees that these rooms had frequent and extensive exposure to Zyklon B. If you measure total cyanide, which is correct procedure, you will get over 1,000 ppm in these fumigation rooms. Markiewicz's tests give you <1.0 ppm. Do you not realize how little that is? The Poles were doing damage control and picked a method intended to obscure the massive observable difference between the fumigation chambers and the fake gas chambers. This was done for political reasons, not for any legitimate scientific considerations.

[ConfusedJew]

Even if we grant the study out of hand, which Germar has done, since he found iron blue, the results are not interpretable. They are not 'significant' or 'meaningful' and do not support the alleged 'criminal usage'.

This argument is incredibly silly and clown like in my opinion.

What are you even trying to say? This is not coherent to me.

[ConfusedJew]

Hang on, I think anybody here reading this will acknowledge i've been very accommodating and responsive to your various challenges and I've had very little from you in return. You've been prompted by myself and other posters here that you have unanswered questions in a growing backlog that need to be addressed, ranging from the reproducibility, to the double standard to which you hold Rudolf, and in my opinion the most important, Markiewicz's treatment of the detection limit. You also clearly didn't know about this faux pas of his, or else you wouldn't have so brazenly sleepwalked into it.

I think it's fair to say, if Rudolf mis-stated his detection limit by two orders of magnitude in a published paper, he would be laughed off the face of the planet, if not outright arrested.

I'm going to slow down my posting to allow you time to recap over your backlog (really its a prompt for you to stop being so disingenuous) and to create space for the other more experienced posters to jump in and address these points too in the event they have valuable contributions or I have missed something.

I agree that the most important piece of this whole thing is the detection limit. What I don't agree is that Markiewiez misspecified or misinterpreted the detection limit. Your response didn't seem relevant or make much sense to me so maybe you can clarify that can point because I don't know what to respond to.

[Stubble]

Even if we grant the study out of hand, which Germar has done, since he found iron blue, the results are not interpretable. They are not 'significant' or 'meaningful' and do not support the alleged 'criminal usage'.

This argument is incredibly silly and clown like in my opinion.

What are you even trying to say? This is not coherent to me.

Perhaps Archie has been more clear.

The levels are so incredibly low as to not support the idea of over a year of criminal usage for the gassing of over 1,000,000 persons.

4,000,000 almost if you want to kick back on Hoess.

[ConfusedJew]

Nonsense. All these miniscule trace readings from Markiewicz merely underscore the absurdity of his method which struggles to detect cyanide even in the disinfestation chambers.

Everyone agrees that these rooms had frequent and extensive exposure to Zyklon B. If you measure total cyanide, which is correct procedure, you will get over 1,000 ppm in these fumigation rooms. Markiewicz's tests give you <1.0 ppm. Do you not realize how little that is? The Poles were doing damage control and picked a method intended to obscure the massive observable difference between the fumigation chambers and the fake gas chambers. This was done for political reasons, not for any legitimate scientific considerations.

Why is total cyanide "the correct procedure"?

Is there only one way to detect whether or not cyanide was used or are there many?

Why is it so bad that there would have been a large difference between the fumigation chambers and the gas chambers? Wouldn't you expect that to have been the case with a homicidal gas chamber?

[ConfusedJew]

Perhaps Archie has been more clear.

The levels are so incredibly low as to not support the idea of over a year of criminal usage for the gassing of over 1,000,000 persons.

4,000,000 almost if you want to kick back on Hoess.

After more than 45 years, wouldn't you expect the levels of cyanide residues in a homicidal gas chambers to have significantly decreased?

HansHill said that exact thing earlier in this thread. He wrote:

To drive this point home, the boiling point of hydrogen cyanide is 25 degrees celsius and the freezing poiint is -15 degrees celsius. Upon boiling, the hydrogen cyanide will simply evaporate, dispersing into the atmosphere via diffusion.

That doesn't mean 100% of the cyanide gas will diffuse but the vast majority of it will, especially over multiple decades. This is why they have to look to see if there were such small amounts, which they did in fact find.

[HansHill]

Perhaps Archie has been more clear.

The levels are so incredibly low as to not support the idea of over a year of criminal usage for the gassing of over 1,000,000 persons.

4,000,000 almost if you want to kick back on Hoess.

After more than 45 years, wouldn't you expect the levels of cyanide residues in a homicidal gas chambers to have significantly decreased?

HansHill said that exact thing earlier in this thread. He wrote:

To drive this point home, the boiling point of hydrogen cyanide is 25 degrees celsius and the freezing poiint is -15 degrees celsius. Upon boiling, the hydrogen cyanide will simply evaporate, dispersing into the atmosphere via diffusion.

That doesn't mean 100% of the cyanide gas will diffuse but the vast majority of it will, especially over multiple decades. This is why they have to look to see if there were such small amounts, which they did in fact find.

Reported for dishonest quote mining.

The full quote is as follows, emphasis in bold. I kind of predicted this slimey behaviour, see section in red:

This is correct, and I'll be interested to see him weasel his way out of his own quote. To drive this point home, the boiling point of hydrogen cyanide is 25 degrees celsius and the freezing poiint is -15 degrees celsius. Upon boiling, the hydrogen cyanide will simply evaporate, dispersing into the atmosphere via diffusion.

Finding trace free associated cyanide in a location like this today and claiming it has been there since 1943 is the equivalent to seeing a cloud in the sky and saying the cloud has been there since 1943. Its simply moronic, childish, and displays reckless regard for anything approaching an honest conversation about the facts at play.

This is the entire point and reason of studying only the cyanide that has chemically bonded with the iron. It is locked-in, it is longterm stable, and it is a much much much better fingerprint into the past for us to investigate.

[Stubble]

CJ, what is the point of excluding long term stable cyanide residues when testing for cyanide 40+ years after the fact?

This don't strike you as odd?

What specifically should exist is inexplicably absent. Long term stable iron blue.

You can continue to cope and seethe about it, but, at the end of the day, just as with the 'huge mass graves', the evidence doesn't support the assertion.

If the alleged 'homicidal gas chambers' were used to murder over 1,000,000 persons at Auschwitz and Auschwitz Birkenau, there would be long term stable cyanide. There isn't. At least not in a quantity sufficient to support the assertion.

[Archie]

They did not specifically "exclude" iron blue but if you don't understand the reason that they did this, and why Prussian Blue is a red herring, I can't continue to have a basic discussion about this with you.

Rudolf ignores the question they were actually testing. Markiewicz et al. weren’t studying the pigment. They tested whether cyanide residues of any kind remained in the walls. Their method was valid for that purpose — and they did find residues. Rudolf simply redefines the goal of the study to make it “wrong.”

He does include a table with their data but misrepresents the labeling. While the Kraków team presented “total cyanide” data, Rudolf presented it as “cyanide without Iron Blue,” which falsely suggests they deliberately excluded relevant data, when in fact they used a standard forensic method designed to measure all chemically available cyanide relevant to Zyklon B exposure.

Just to be clear, are you claiming that the Prussian blue in the fumigation chambers (below for example) is NOT due to Zyklon B usage?



If the above is due to Zyklon B usage, then how would this not be "relevant"?

If they tested "all" of the cyanide as you claim and did not exclude anything, then can you explain why Rudolf and Leuchter got readings over 1,000 ppm while the Poles got reading below 1.0 ppm even when testing fumigation chamber samples with visible blue staining?

[Stubble]

I can only assume CJ has an expression similar to this at this point;



I will reiterate, I will never see Prussian Blue where they said it would be.



If it were me, I'd slap a pad lock on this one, do the thing that will be done, and let the AI musings slowly slip into obscure oblivion.

[ConfusedJew]

CJ, what is the point of excluding long term stable cyanide residues when testing for cyanide 40+ years after the fact?

This don't strike you as odd?

What specifically should exist is inexplicably absent. Long term stable iron blue.

No. Iron blue was not expected to form and it obviously didn't because you would be able to see it. Why should they have tested for it.

J. Bailer (1) writes in the collective work "Amoklauf gegen die Wirklichkeit" that the formation of Prussian blue in bricks is simply improbable; however, he takes into consideration the possibility that the walls of the delousing room were coated with this dye as a paint. It should be added that this blue coloration does not appear on the walls of all the delousing rooms.

If the blue coloration didn't even appear in all of delousing rooms, why would you expect it in homicidal chambers where the gas exposure would have been much less and the special conditions were much less likely to exist?