The Indisputable, Factual Reality of Rudolf's Chemistry at Auschwitz

[Nessie]

In your opinion. I prefer evidence. The evidence of usage is mass homicidal gassings, which means, logically and evidentially, Markiewicz and Green are correct and Leuchter and Rudolf are wrong.

Nessie, your rejection of reason is becoming even more blatant. Just to bring things back on-track, please clarify specifically what you object to about this statement from the OP:

When it comes to the forensic chemistry of Prussian Blue (ferrocyanide) residues in the ruins of the Birkenau gas chambers, Germar Rudolf’s is the only published, systematic study to have measured total cyanide content, including stable iron-cyanide compounds. Mainstream Polish and Western scientific studies, such as Markiewicz et al. and critiques by Dr. Richard Green, did not include Prussian Blue or total iron-cyanide in their analyses, but instead focused only on soluble/free cyanide compounds. Rudolf’s key methodological criticism—that the most stable form of cyanide residue has been excluded from mainstream chemistry literature on these sites—remains valid. To date, no direct, full-scale, independent replication or refutation of Rudolf’s chemical findings using his FeCN methodology has been carried out or published in the mainstream literature. Given that Rudolf’s work was first published over 25 years ago, this absence of follow-up or replication understandably raises concern among revisionists, and may also be seen as a concern by those who believe in the need for the most robust scientific and historical substantiation possible regarding the events at Birkenau.

The statement is logically flawed. It is an argument to authority, one authority in particular, Rudolf. Just because he is an authority, does not make him correct, even if other authorities have supposedly failed to successfully challenge his findings. Logically and evidentially, there is a disagreement between authorities. Add to that, Rudolf admits he may be wrong and that further work needs to be done. That work has, as admitted, not been done. Therefore, the chemistry of gassings, is inconclusive.

The statement assumes Rudolf is correct, even when he admits he may not be and that other chemists are wrong, incorrectly appealing to Rudolf's authority. If the author was honest, he would admit the disagreement means there is uncertainty. It is not normal, scientifically, for only one set of testing, to be considered conclusive. That there has been no replication, as the author admits, means no corroboration and that means a level of uncertainty.

The reason why Rudolf "raises concern" among revisionists, is because their inclination is to disbelieve gassings and they support anything that can give them reason to have concern. They are biased towards any criticism of the gassing narrative. They also fail to see that Rudolf's argument, that since gassings cannot, in his opinion, have been possible, therefore they did not happen, is the logical fallacy of argument from incredulity. Whether gassings happened, cannot reliably be determined by chemical analysis of the walls of Krema I and the ruins of the other Kremas.

That is because of the passage of time between activity and analysis and tampering that is known to have taken place with the locations tested. Anyone with experience of crime scene examinations, knows that. The locations examined were corrupted, by the Nazis converting Krema I to a bomb shelter, to Krema II being demolished. Nothing remains of the two farm house/bunker gas chambers, for all we know, there was Prussian blue on their walls and they looked like the delousing chambers. That also causes uncertainty about any conclusions.

No genuine scientist would ignore other evidence, when reaching a conclusion. A scientist who concludes the world is flat, from their calculations, when there is so much evidence the world is round, is wrong. The evidence of usage of the Kremas, is they were used, for a period of time, as gas chambers. Krema I was a crematorium, then a gas chambers, then an air raid shelter. Kremas II to V were crematoriums modified from the outset to be used as gas chambers, with possibly some use as a crematorium prior to being blown up or demolished. The farm houses/bunkers, were homes, then gas chambers, then demolished. So-called revisionists cannot evidence, let alone agree on a chronology of use. If Rudolf was genuine with his investigations, he would also evidence what took place inside the Kremas. He has had access to the sites and camp records, but he fails in that basic, investigatory task. I have asked him, on X, to say what the buildings were used for, but he has failed to say.

Those are the logical, evidential and scientific problems with the statement.

[Callafangers]

Nessie, your rejection of reason is becoming even more blatant. Just to bring things back on-track, please clarify specifically what you object to about this statement from the OP:

When it comes to the forensic chemistry of Prussian Blue (ferrocyanide) residues in the ruins of the Birkenau gas chambers, Germar Rudolf’s is the only published, systematic study to have measured total cyanide content, including stable iron-cyanide compounds. Mainstream Polish and Western scientific studies, such as Markiewicz et al. and critiques by Dr. Richard Green, did not include Prussian Blue or total iron-cyanide in their analyses, but instead focused only on soluble/free cyanide compounds. Rudolf’s key methodological criticism—that the most stable form of cyanide residue has been excluded from mainstream chemistry literature on these sites—remains valid. To date, no direct, full-scale, independent replication or refutation of Rudolf’s chemical findings using his FeCN methodology has been carried out or published in the mainstream literature. Given that Rudolf’s work was first published over 25 years ago, this absence of follow-up or replication understandably raises concern among revisionists, and may also be seen as a concern by those who believe in the need for the most robust scientific and historical substantiation possible regarding the events at Birkenau.

The statement is logically flawed. It is an argument to authority, one authority in particular, Rudolf. Just because he is an authority, does not make him correct, even if other authorities have supposedly failed to successfully challenge his findings. Logically and evidentially, there is a disagreement between authorities. Add to that, Rudolf admits he may be wrong and that further work needs to be done. That work has, as admitted, not been done. Therefore, the chemistry of gassings, is inconclusive.

The statement assumes Rudolf is correct, even when he admits he may not be and that other chemists are wrong, incorrectly appealing to Rudolf's authority. If the author was honest, he would admit the disagreement means there is uncertainty. It is not normal, scientifically, for only one set of testing, to be considered conclusive. That there has been no replication, as the author admits, means no corroboration and that means a level of uncertainty.

The reason why Rudolf "raises concern" among revisionists, is because their inclination is to disbelieve gassings and they support anything that can give them reason to have concern. They are biased towards any criticism of the gassing narrative. They also fail to see that Rudolf's argument, that since gassings cannot, in his opinion, have been possible, therefore they did not happen, is the logical fallacy of argument from incredulity. Whether gassings happened, cannot reliably be determined by chemical analysis of the walls of Krema I and the ruins of the other Kremas.

That is because of the passage of time between activity and analysis and tampering that is known to have taken place with the locations tested. Anyone with experience of crime scene examinations, knows that. The locations examined were corrupted, by the Nazis converting Krema I to a bomb shelter, to Krema II being demolished. Nothing remains of the two farm house/bunker gas chambers, for all we know, there was Prussian blue on their walls and they looked like the delousing chambers. That also causes uncertainty about any conclusions.

No genuine scientist would ignore other evidence, when reaching a conclusion. A scientist who concludes the world is flat, from their calculations, when there is so much evidence the world is round, is wrong. The evidence of usage of the Kremas, is they were used, for a period of time, as gas chambers. Krema I was a crematorium, then a gas chambers, then an air raid shelter. Kremas II to V were crematoriums modified from the outset to be used as gas chambers, with possibly some use as a crematorium prior to being blown up or demolished. The farm houses/bunkers, were homes, then gas chambers, then demolished. So-called revisionists cannot evidence, let alone agree on a chronology of use. If Rudolf was genuine with his investigations, he would also evidence what took place inside the Kremas. He has had access to the sites and camp records, but he fails in that basic, investigatory task. I have asked him, on X, to say what the buildings were used for, but he has failed to say.

Those are the logical, evidential and scientific problems with the statement.

I appreciate the lengthy response, Nessie. However you are leaning a lot on 'how certain' Rudolf should or shouldn't be. But is "he's not 100% sure!" really such a great argument for your position? If he's, say, 70% sure, and that 70% is firmly grounded in enough evidence such that most reasonable people would see it and also be ~70% sure it's meaningful... then isn't that something the Holocaust establishment should attempt to replicate and 'debunk' ASAP and with full-force? And since they haven't been able to do this after 25 years, isn't this in itself meaningful? Maybe just a little?

[Nessie]

....

Those are the logical, evidential and scientific problems with the statement.

I appreciate the lengthy response, Nessie. However you are leaning a lot on 'how certain' Rudolf should or shouldn't be. But is "he's not 100% sure!" really such a great argument for your position? If he's, say, 70% sure, and that 70% is firmly grounded in enough evidence such that most reasonable people would see it and also be ~70% sure it's meaningful...

Scientists always leave wriggle room and do not like to claim 100% certainty. There is far more uncertainty about Rudolf's results than you want to admit. He states what you want to hear, so, without any critical analysis of his methodology, results or other evidence, you claim he is correct.

What I "lean on" is;

1 - other chemists disagree with him and regard his work as debunked.
2 - the evidence of usage is that gassings did happen.
3 - no other usage is evidenced to the same degree and even revisionists cannot agree amongst themselves.

... then isn't that something the Holocaust establishment should attempt to replicate and 'debunk' ASAP and with full-force? And since they haven't been able to do this after 25 years, isn't this in itself meaningful? Maybe just a little?

4 - Rudolf admits he may be wrong and he has no corroboration from further testing. Yes, more testing should be conducted. Until that point, should you not reserve judgement? Should you not accept, that in isolation, where other chemists disagree and the evidence is against him, that Rudolf is wrong?

[HansHill]

This is so disingenuous. Once again - Rudolf's position being falsifiable only strengthens it, not weakens it. He is doing the scientifically correct and respectable thing here by leaving "wiggle room" as you say, for his theory to be disproven.

Rudolf's theory may very well be disproven, but in order for that to happen.... it needs to be... disproven. It needs to be demonstrated why exactly the mortar can be exposed to repeated highly concentrated blasts of HcN without forming Prussian Blue.

Every attempt at this has failed. Each attack vector can be addressed, for example Markiewicz's argument about the pH being too low is explained by his measurements being taken 40 years after construction being completed. Mortar gradually and slowly regresses to neutral pH over decades - this is as expected and does nothing to discredit Rudolf's assertion of high alkalinity in the 1940s!

Likewise, the "low concentration" argument seems compelling on the surface (pun intended), but completely falls apart when you try to explain the mechanism by which the SS achieved a uniform 300 ppm across months of daily gassing (!) and how exactly a 300 ppm gassing can outpace a US execution.

In summary, there may be some exotic explanation for this failure of formation, but we are waiting to hear it. If this ever materialises, Rudolf will again review and revise his theory, and if necessary, retract it. This is what falsifiable means.

[Nazgul]

This is what falsifiable means.

Waste of time explaining science to someone who is closed minded.

[HansHill]

This is what falsifiable means.

Waste of time explaining science to someone who is closed minded.

Yes, but worth repeating for the lurkers, lest they think Nessie has a point

[Nazgul]

Yes, but worth repeating for the lurkers, lest they think Nessie has a point

True...However, from my observations, the only point Nessie has made is explained in the image below.

[Nessie]

This is so disingenuous. Once again - Rudolf's position being falsifiable only strengthens it, not weakens it. He is doing the scientifically correct and respectable thing here by leaving "wiggle room" as you say, for his theory to be disproven.

Rudolf's theory may very well be disproven, but in order for that to happen.... it needs to be... disproven. It needs to be demonstrated why exactly the mortar can be exposed to repeated highly concentrated blasts of HcN without forming Prussian Blue.

Krema I, which used for gassings, 1941-2, was then modified to be an air raid shelter in 1944 and then subject to rebuilding work after the war to show it as a gas chambers. Kremas II was used for gassings 1943-4, but that stopped in the latter part of 1944, and it was blown up in 1945. Only a small part of what was the Leichenkeller can be accessed. Krema III Leichenkeller cannot be accessed and Kremas IV and V and the two farmhouse gas chambers were totally demolished. That there is no obvious sign of Prussian Blue, on the little that remains, does not mean that there was never any discolouration. For all we know, the walls of Kremas IV and V and the farmhouses were stained Prussian Blue.

Since not even every delousing chamber stained Prussian Blue, it has never been proven that all types of building construction, will end up stained, after exposure to Zyklon B. Many, if not all the buildings at the camp were deloused, and none of them have any staining.

Every attempt at this has failed. Each attack vector can be addressed, for example Markiewicz's argument about the pH being too low is explained by his measurements being taken 40 years after construction being completed. Mortar gradually and slowly regresses to neutral pH over decades - this is as expected and does nothing to discredit Rudolf's assertion of high alkalinity in the 1940s!

It is not clear why you are so certain Rudolf is correct and Markiewicz is wrong, except to say that you desparately want Rudolf to be correct. At least I can point to evidence of usage, to explain why Marckiewicz is correct.

Likewise, the "low concentration" argument seems compelling on the surface (pun intended), but completely falls apart when you try to explain the mechanism by which the SS achieved a uniform 300 ppm across months of daily gassing (!) and how exactly a 300 ppm gassing can outpace a US execution.

In summary, there may be some exotic explanation for this failure of formation, but we are waiting to hear it. If this ever materialises, Rudolf will again review and revise his theory, and if necessary, retract it. This is what falsifiable means.

The lack of Prussian Blue has been variously explained by building construction, washing, painting, exposure to the elements and different times and level of exposure between delousing and gassings.

Just because Rudolf cannot work out how gassings were possible, because of the lack of staining and residue, does not therefore mean no gassings. To argue such, is the logical fallacy of argument from incredulity.

[HansHill]

It is not clear why you are so certain Rudolf is correct and Markiewicz is wrong, except to say that you desparately want Rudolf to be correct. At least I can point to evidence of usage, to explain why Marckiewicz is correct.

This one is easy - Markiewicz tells us in his paper that he has no way to account for the Prussian Blue in the delousing facilities:

“It is hard to imagine the chemical reactions and physicochemical processes
that could have led to the formation of Prussian blue in that place".

Markiewicz is wrong, because he doesn't even attempt to be right. He tells you in black and white that he will omit PB because he doesn't understand it.

The lack of Prussian Blue has been variously explained by building construction, washing, painting, exposure to the elements and different times and level of exposure between delousing and gassings.

This is the Orthodox version of the Wooden Doors meme, and indicates a very low level understanding of the arguments. You are conflating two different arguments, one being "PB never formed in the first place" as indicated by the low exposure timess, washing, painting, and "PB formed but eroded" as indicated by "exposure to the elements"

You cannot in good faith argue two eventualities that are mutually exclusive without appearing desperate and dishonest.

[Nazgul]

Just because Rudolf cannot work out how gassings were possible, because of the lack of staining and residue, does not therefore mean no gassings. To argue such, is the logical fallacy of argument from incredulity.

You are closed minded, unable to imagine the reality. A question to ask, what were the inside lining of the Kremas.?

[Nessie]

It is not clear why you are so certain Rudolf is correct and Markiewicz is wrong, except to say that you desparately want Rudolf to be correct. At least I can point to evidence of usage, to explain why Marckiewicz is correct.

This one is easy - Markiewicz tells us in his paper that he has no way to account for the Prussian Blue in the delousing facilities:

“It is hard to imagine the chemical reactions and physicochemical processes
that could have led to the formation of Prussian blue in that place".

Markiewicz is wrong, because he doesn't even attempt to be right. He tells you in black and white that he will omit PB because he doesn't understand it.

The lack of Prussian Blue has been variously explained by building construction, washing, painting, exposure to the elements and different times and level of exposure between delousing and gassings.

This is the Orthodox version of the Wooden Doors meme, and indicates a very low level understanding of the arguments. You are conflating two different arguments, one being "PB never formed in the first place" as indicated by the low exposure timess, washing, painting, and "PB formed but eroded" as indicated by "exposure to the elements"

You cannot in good faith argue two eventualities that are mutually exclusive without appearing desperate and dishonest.

I don't think you get my argument. I am saying Rudolf is definitely wrong and that Markiewicz maybe as well, with regards to the chemistry and their testing and opinions about traces of HCN and Prussian Blue and mass gassings. But the evidence remains, mass gassings happened. That is the bit which really annoys you! The evidence of usage is on my side.

[Nessie]

Just because Rudolf cannot work out how gassings were possible, because of the lack of staining and residue, does not therefore mean no gassings. To argue such, is the logical fallacy of argument from incredulity.

You are closed minded, unable to imagine the reality.

No, open minded and able to recognise a logical fallacy when I see one.

A question to ask, what were the inside lining of the Kremas.?

No idea. Whether what is there in Krema I and the small part of Krema II that can be accessed, now, was what was there in 1941-4, is not known. That is part of the problem for the science and why revisionists are wrong to rely so heavily on Rudolf's argument.

[HansHill]

I don't think you get my argument. I am saying Rudolf is definitely wrong and that Markiewicz maybe as well, with regards to the chemistry and their testing and opinions about traces of HCN and Prussian Blue and mass gassings. But the evidence remains, mass gassings happened. That is the bit which really annoys you! The evidence of usage is on my side.

The discerning reader will ascertain in good faith why this is rubbish.

[Nessie]

I don't think you get my argument. I am saying Rudolf is definitely wrong and that Markiewicz maybe as well, with regards to the chemistry and their testing and opinions about traces of HCN and Prussian Blue and mass gassings. But the evidence remains, mass gassings happened. That is the bit which really annoys you! The evidence of usage is on my side.

The discerning reader will ascertain in good faith why this is rubbish.

Please explain why what I have said is "rubbish". It is a fact that;

1 - Rudolf, Markiewicz, Leuchter etc can all be wrong about the chemistry of gassings and residue.
2 - Mass gassings are evidenced by documents, witnesses, forensics and circumstantial evidence.
3 - No other usage can be proved and when so-called revisionists try to revise the history of the Kremas, they contradict each other and come up with various different claims.

[curioussoul]

This thread is absolutely comical. Nessie's responses highlight his utter lack of understanding of the scientific process, the historical method, and, as it were, evidencing (one of his favorite words). Given that he's essentially pushed into a corner, he's banking on the following arguments to somehow dig himself out of the mess:

(1) Because Rudolf acknowledges his theory is falsifiable (a key feature of historically and scientifically valid hypotheses), Nessie wants us to believe this is apparently a weakness in Rudolf's argumentation. To Nessie's credit, this is in contrast to the orthodox theory on the Holocaust, which has been carefully constructed such as to be unfalsifiable. What this means is that no matter which foundational pillar of the Holocaust is toppled (and they all have been), the theory can always be conveniently adapted to fit whatever evidentiary scenario arises. No matter how flimsy the basis upon which the Holocaust story rests, it can always be upheld because there is always an escape-route ready at hand - be it "code words", be it "they destroyed all the evidence", be it "all witnesses make mistakes", be it anything. This underscores the fundamentally unscientific nature of modern Holocaust studies.

(2) If Rudolf is right, that would mean all of the other "evidence" which Nessie purports proves the Holocaust, must be wrong. Therefore, Rudolf simply can not be correct. Conon Doyle's classical adage, "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth", does not exist for Nessie. Yet there is at least one such scenario to which Conan Doyle's quote indisputably applies: the cremation capacity at the Reinhard camps. We know for an absolute fact that it would not have been possible to cremate the remains of the Jews allegedly gassed at the Reinhard camps under the circumstances and in the timeframe alleged. That is an indisputable fact of physical reality, the consequences of which carry deadly implications for the historicity of the Holocaust.

(3) The concentration of HCN in the gas chambers was allegedly much lower than in the delousing facilities, which would explain the lack of Prussian Blue. There is no historiographic evidence for this, it is purely an argument from convenience. The historical problem with this argument is that it contradicts the claims of their main witness, Rudolf Hoess. Hoess is one of only a handful of witnesses to ever give specific numbers for the amount of Zyklon B used in the gas chambers; he claimed that the amount was practically the same as that used for delousings. Germar Rudolf has also been able to demonstrate that the concentration of HCN is not necessarily of any major importance for the formation of Prussian Blue. He gives numerous examples of newly renovated buildings receiving singular delousings with HCN and resulting in major Prussian Blue discolorations. It also contradicts numerous witness testimonies wherein the victims died within less than 10 minutes, an absolute impossibility unless the concentrations of Zyklon B were astronomically high, as pointed out by HansHill. As explained before, U.S. gas chamber execution victims had longer death times for a higher concentration of HCN than that alleged at Auschwitz. In U.S. gas chambers, the gas was released at high concentrations directly into the face of the victim, yet they survived for 14 minutes or longer on average. The idea that the Zyklon B would have been able to spread uniformly at significant concentrations in the large hall of the gas chamber is flatly contradicted by the evidence and by common sense.

(4) Because of the mere fact that anti-revisionists such as Markiewicz and Green have argued against Rudolf, the jury is apparently still out on the question of Prussian Blue, despite the fact that no one has yet to come up with a single plausible explanation for why there is no Prussian Blue in the gas chambers, be they chemists or not.

I have a challenge for Nessie. Show us you're serious: steelman Rudolf's argument and see where you end up. Alright?