A request to Confused Jew

[ConfusedJew]

Your LLM has made a mistake - Markiwicz et al did not measure total cyanides - this is your side's whole problem and this dodges the question and is immediately suspect of AI guardrails. I suggest you tighten your prompts significantly, or you visit the material directly yourself- additionally it doesn't answer the question at all as to why these cyanides were omitted. In a test for the presence of cyanide, explain why the largest deposits of cyanide were omitted please.

Will you please provide a link to the original source so I can look through that? You might be technically right while it also might be a distinction that isn't very important but I will look.

I don't know what "reverses the forensic relationship" means, so either you or your LLM will be expected to explain this.

Using Prussian Blue as the only “trustworthy” marker is scientifically invalid—it’s a selective criterion designed to generate a false negative. The correct approach is multi-factorial forensic analysis.

It's basically saying that if you have Prussian Blue, then you know that it was used, but not all uses of HCN will result in Prussian Blue residues.

You also have to look at the chemistry of the environment, the type and duration of exposure, and known historical function of the structure.

This is exactly how forensic investigators, historians, and courts treat such cases.

Here's an analogy:

Imagine you are looking at an intersection. During some car crashes, a car may slam on the brakes and leave skid marks and broken class. But it's possible that the driver just fell asleep or skidding in a rainstorm and drove off a cliff leaving no trace.

Now somebody says, I don't see any skid marks so there was not crash. Skid marks, like Prussian Blue, are not always left behind when there's a fatal car crash. But if you see the skid marks and broken glass, you are pretty sure that there has been a car crash.

"Relevant markers for a specific event" - Reminder that we are testing for the formation of cyanide compounds in two locations - one with a notable deposit of cyanides, and one without. The "specific event" being when the cyanide residue formed, and to be scientific we must approach this without a formation hypothesis in mind, unless it can be explained why we are discriminating against long term stable compounds. Omitting them begs the question as to why these specific cyanide deposits were omitted.

Remember: Prussian Blue is an exceptionally good indicator of the presence of HcN. Discriminating against these long term stable compounds is to discriminate against the very thing we are looking for. To focus on nonbound free associated cyanides which are stable to orders of magnitude lower than that of PB is absolutely dishonest to the highest degree.

You argue that we should test for cyanide residues without a formation hypothesis in mind.

But forensic science bases hypotheses on chemical conditions required for residue formation and data like the frequency, duration, and concentration of gas applications.

Testing without a formation hypothesis doesn't establish neutrality because you can't interpret forensic data unless you contextualize what you are looking at.

Go back to the intersection analogy. If you look at the intersection, you won't see evidence of the car driving off the cliff but if you look over the cliff. Somebody tells you that they saw the car drive off a cliff but the rain has dried so there's no evidence of it.

Modern forensic toxicology recognizes the exposure context. Basically, the absence of Prussian Blue is not evidence of absence of cyanide use. We are right back to the start, at asking "why?" - your LLM has attempted to close loop without actually addressing it.

It's like the car analogy. Let me know if that makes sense to you. It is a little confusing.

[Wetzelrad]

Markiewicz et al. (1994) did measure total cyanides, but they emphasized the relevant compounds: iron-cyanide complexes, which are chemically stable and persist longer in masonry.

Isn't this an exact reversal of what happened? I believe a correct version of this statement would be:

Markiewicz et al. (1994) did not measure total cyanides because they excluded the relevant compounds: iron-cyanide complexes, which are chemically stable and persist longer in masonry.

Since I'm not a chemist I admit I could be slightly off on this, but when Richard Green wrote about this he used those exact terms: the Markiewicz team "exclud[ed] iron-cyanide complexes."

[ConfusedJew]

I would not say that lack of Prussian blue all by itself 100% disproves the mass gassing with Zyklon story. But it is undeniably evidence against the story. Germar Rudolf's book goes into great length on the question of what conditions are needed for Prussian blue to form. Recently constructed underground cellars very likely would have been ideal.

The lack of Prussian Blue is just data, not inherently evidence against homicidal gassing — unless it contradicts a well-formed formation hypothesis.

Imagine checking a crime scene for fingerprints. If the suspect wore gloves, and you find no fingerprints, that’s data, not evidence that the suspect wasn’t there.

Your argument (presumably copied from AI) is that 1) the gas chambers used a lower concentration than the delousing chambers, 2) The gassings were short and the ventilation was super efficient meaning the exposure period was not that long.

The concentration argument is something that they made up in the late 80s only AFTER revisionists pointed out the Prussian blue problem. The argument is that the toxicology literature says 300 ppm is fatal for humans, and they just that this must have been the exact exposure that was used. This is a bogus argument because 1) Achieving the absolute theoretical minimum for all the gassing would require some effort, 2) There is no evidence the Germans were targeting 300 ppm, 3) US gas chambers that used HCN used a much higher concentration (over 3,000 ppm), 4) there are zero testimonies that support this 300 ppm figure. In fact, most of the testimony suggest that they did not calculate very carefully and used multiple cans, 5) Even if it was 300 ppm (which again they made up in desperation in the late 1980s) there's no evidence that that amount would be insufficient for Prussian blue to form.

I use AI to write the response. I still read and understand it and then select what is most relevant and sometimes edit it myself. To be anti-AI is kind of like telling somebody not to trust anything on the internet. You should verify it all but it's not worthless information.

The concentration range predates revisionism. Toxicology data from the early 20th century (including German sources) clearly establishes that 200–300 ppm of hydrogen cyanide is lethal within minutes. Herbert Flury was a German toxicologist who wrote in the 1930s while working for the Wehrmacht that 300 ppm kills humans in under 10 minutes.

Claim 1: "Achieving minimum exposure would require effort"

The Nazis were not trying to minimize dosage. The historical evidence (e.g. testimony, forensic architecture, Zyklon B purchase records) suggests they used more than the minimum to ensure rapid death. But that doesn’t mean they reached delousing-level ppm or had the conditions needed to form Prussian Blue. The key issue is exposure duration and surface chemistry, not maximum ppm.

Claim 2: "No evidence the Germans were targeting 300 ppm"

Nobody claims that the Nazis were targeting 300 ppm and they most likely weren't. The reason that the 300 ppm threshold is important is because that is a minimum amount needed for mass killing. Using more than 300 ppm does not guarantee Prussian Blue formation unless you have the right pH, moisture, and iron availability. So even if they used 1000+ ppm, Prussian Blue still might not form under those conditions.

Claim 3: "US gas chambers used 3000+ ppm"

This is true but the goal of U.S. chambers was legal certainty which required a dose far in excess of the lethal dose. The Nazis were striving for efficient mass death, not engineering precision.

Claim 4: "No testimonies support 300 ppm; they used multiple cans"

This is also true, but it doesn't matter. Zyklon B releases HCN gradually and using multiple cans does not necessarily mean they used 3000 ppm concentrations. Final ppm is determined by all sorts of environmental factors.

Testimonies consistently support fast death (5–20 minutes), aligning with toxicological models for low-to-mid-range ppm under crowded, high-CO₂ conditions.

5. "No evidence that 300 ppm would be insufficient for Prussian Blue to form"

This is not correct. Having a high even ppm is necessary, but not sufficient for Prussian Blue to form. You still need the right chemical conditions with requires free iron in the walls, alkaline conditions, and sustained exposure. It is definitely possible to have 300 ppm and not form Prussian Blue. If you aren't satisfied with that answer, I can go deeper on that.

You other argument is about the exposure period. This is another BS argument that they made up only AFTER the Prussian blue problem was pointed out. First of all, Zyklon pellets do not release all the gas immediately.

You are right that release wasn’t instantaneous, but that doesn't contradict the short exposure hypothesis. The victims died quickly, and the gas was then ventilated which is consistent with forensic toxicology.

To deal with this problem, what they claim is that there were these special columns ("Kula columns") that they used to remove the pellets in the middle of the gassing. Never mind for a minute how idiotic this procedure would be (in the US gas chambers, they dissolve the HCN tablets in acid to accelerate the release and use ammonia to stop the reaction). There's no actual, hard evidence that these columns existed. It's based on testimonies. I.e., STORIES. You won't find any mention of these Kula columns in older histories.

The Kula columns were described by multiple witnesses independently, including Michał Kula, a Polish prisoner and technician who claimed to have built them. You are right that there are no surviving physical examples but most of the crematoria were destroyed by the SS in 1944 to hide evidence. Absence of surviving hardware does not negate multiple independent testimonies.

Most importantly, the Kula column concept wasn't invented after the "Prussian Blue problem." The term “Kula column” and the testimony about their function appear in Soviet trials, Polish inquiries, and early survivor accounts in the 1940s and 1950. This was decades before Leuchter or Rudolf.

The other problem here is that the ventilation would not have been anywhere near as efficient as you are claiming even with these mythical Kula columns. The "gas chambers" in fact had ventilation systems that were absolutely typical for a morgue (which is what those rooms actually were).

You are correct that the original designation of the rooms was as morgues (Leichenkeller), but this isn't debated. It is well documented that morgues were converted into gas chambers. I can look this one up too if you don't believe it.

Moreover, even if we are generous and assume the rooms were ventilated within an hour or two, it's still not a given that this would be insufficient for Prussian blue to form.

You are right that ventilation time alone does not determine whether Prussian Blue will form but that's why it is only one of several factors considered in forensic and chemical analyses. The absence of Prussian Blue in the gas chambers is not due to ventilation time alone, it's due to the total chemical environment, including pH, iron availability, humidity, frequency of exposure, and duration.

Here's a simple analogy. Just because a sponge didn’t get soaked doesn’t mean that it wasn’t exposed to water. Maybe the water was acidic, maybe the sponge was sealed, or maybe it wasn’t there long enough.

I disagree with your claim that Prussian blue is "not a reliable marker for cyanide exposure." If it is present, this is an extremely reliable indicator. For a negative result, the matter is a bit more complicated, but if there were present some condition that inhibited the formation of PB, then you need to say what those conditions were. You threw out failed arguments to explain this.

I think you misinterpreted that point. Prussian Blue will only be present after cyanide exposure but it will not always be there. So if you don't detect Prussian Blue, it doesn't prove that there was no cyanide exposure. It doesn't prove either way.

[ConfusedJew]

Isn't this an exact reversal of what happened? I believe a correct version of this statement would be:

Markiewicz et al. (1994) did not measure total cyanides because they excluded the relevant compounds: iron-cyanide complexes, which are chemically stable and persist longer in masonry.

Since I'm not a chemist I admit I could be slightly off on this, but when Richard Green wrote about this he used those exact terms: the Markiewicz team "exclud[ed] iron-cyanide complexes."

ChatGPT might have hallucinated. I agree that it didn't make sense but that's why we go back and forth to discover the truth when there is new information to add or we need to correct a mistake.

The Markiewicz et al. (1994) study did not measure total cyanides in the sense of testing for all forms of cyanide residues, including Prussian Blue. Instead, they explicitly avoided testing for iron-bound cyanide compounds such as Prussian Blue (ferric ferrocyanide), and they gave a specific reason for doing so.

Translated from Polish - “In our opinion, the formation of Prussian Blue is not a normal result of gassing with hydrogen cyanide... Thus, we decided not to include analysis of iron cyanide (Prussian Blue) in our method, as it is not a reliable indicator of the presence or absence of HCN in the environment.”

In other words, they deliberately excluded testing for long-term stable compounds like Prussian Blue because it only forms under very specific conditions (as in delousing chambers). They didn't expect to find it based on the expected conditions of the homicidal gas chambers.

Disbelievers (especially people like Germar Rudolf) have claimed that not testing for Prussian Blue was a form of evasion. They chose to test for residues that would form in all conditions where HCN was used. They tested for free cyanide ions and simple cyanide compounds which are shorter-lived, but more chemically reliable in varied environments.

They ultimately did find low but measurable levels of cyanide resides that one would expect to find with brief exposure and less favorable conditions for PB formation.

If you go back to the car crash analogy, this is like saying that they didn't bother to check for the skid marks because they were expecting to find that the car drove off the cliff. They didn't bother checking for the skid marks because they didn't think they were going to be there.

[Callafangers]

ChatGPT might have hallucinated. I agree that it didn't make sense but that's why we go back and forth to discover the truth when there is new information to add or we need to correct a mistake.

No jackass, this is why you should not be relying on ChatGPT for 70% of every post/reply you make here.

[ConfusedJew]

Can you mute people on this forum?

I know I said I wasn't going to reply to you but this is too funny that you have absolutely no clue how to respond to this so you just resort to personal attacks and complain that I am using ChatGPT

[ConfusedJew]

Prussian Blue formation is uncommon in most hydrogen cyanide (HCN) exposures — including both industrial and forensic contexts. It only forms under specific, uncommon environmental conditions.

In industrial accidents, suicides, or criminal poisonings with HCN, Prussian Blue residue is almost never found — forensic labs usually test for free cyanide ions in blood or tissues, not pigments on walls.

Delousing chambers like those at Auschwitz are among the few environments in history that were ripe for the formation of Prussian Blue. That makes delousing chambers a chemical outlier, not a standard expectation.

Chemist Dr. Richard Green (PhD, Stanford) summarized the issue:
"The formation of Prussian Blue is not a normal result of HCN exposure. It requires very specific conditions that are rarely met — even in mass gas exposure."

Forensic studies and war crime investigations since the 1940s have rarely observed Prussian Blue outside of long-term fumigation chambers.

[ConfusedJew]

Let me make this as clear as I possibly can.

The 1994 forensic study conducted by Jan Markiewicz, Wojciech Gubała, and Jerzy Łomnicki at the Institute of Forensic Research in Kraków, controls were included in their analysis of cyanide residues from Auschwitz.

Their findings were scientifically valid (although we can debate that further if you need), forensically appropriate (we already have been debating that), and consistent with what you would expect from the orthodox Holocaust narrative.

In contrast, Fred Leuchter did not use proper controls and Germar Rudolf used methods designed for industrial process testing, not aged masonry, and ignored solubility and pH factors. Neither of those guys were certified chemists in forensic analysis. Markiewicz and team were. Although lack of certification doesn't mean that they were necessarily wrong because I lack many credentials for issues where I'm very capable.

You would expect to see much higher levels in the delousing facilities and the formation of PB which you would expect for those conditions. The cyanide trace levels found in the gas chambers were also what you would expect for a killing chamber.

The Fred Leuchter report was published in 1988. He took large, bulk masonry samples (up to 1 kg) from ruins where cyanide traces would be heavily diluted, especially after 40+ years of exposure. We can go into that in more depth too if you don't believe it.

Rudolf screwed up his analysis by focusing almost exclusively on detecting iron-based cyanide compounds (Prussian Blue).
Based on his education in chemistry, he knew or should have known that you most likely wouldn't find Prussian Blue in killing chambers. He published his dishonest or extremely misguided results and was later arrested for holocaust denial.

During his trial, Dr. Richard Green, a PhD chemist from Stanford, concluded that he was not simply erroneous, but he was deliberately misleading based on his selective method. The judgment was based not only on Green's mistakes, but the nature of those mistakes, which suggest that he likely knew better but chose not to follow standard procedures.

[ConfusedJew]

Might have been worth mentioning that I come from a family with a background in international chemical manufacturing

[Archie]

Let me make this as clear as I possibly can.

The 1994 forensic study conducted by Jan Markiewicz, Wojciech Gubała, and Jerzy Łomnicki at the Institute of Forensic Research in Kraków, controls were included in their analysis of cyanide residues from Auschwitz.

Their findings were scientifically valid (although we can debate that further if you need), forensically appropriate (we already have been debating that), and consistent with what you would expect from the orthodox Holocaust narrative.

In contrast, Fred Leuchter did not use proper controls and Germar Rudolf used methods designed for industrial process testing, not aged masonry, and ignored solubility and pH factors. Neither of those guys were certified chemists in forensic analysis. Markiewicz and team were. Although lack of certification doesn't mean that they were necessarily wrong because I lack many credentials for issues where I'm very capable.

You would expect to see much higher levels in the delousing facilities and the formation of PB which you would expect for those conditions. The cyanide trace levels found in the gas chambers were also what you would expect for a killing chamber.

The Fred Leuchter report was published in 1988. He took large, bulk masonry samples (up to 1 kg) from ruins where cyanide traces would be heavily diluted, especially after 40+ years of exposure. We can go into that in more depth too if you don't believe it.

Rudolf screwed up his analysis by focusing almost exclusively on detecting iron-based cyanide compounds (Prussian Blue).
Based on his education in chemistry, he knew or should have known that you most likely wouldn't find Prussian Blue in killing chambers. He published his dishonest or extremely misguided results and was later arrested for holocaust denial.

During his trial, Dr. Richard Green, a PhD chemist from Stanford, concluded that he was not simply erroneous, but he was deliberately misleading based on his selective method. The judgment was based not only on Green's mistakes, but the nature of those mistakes, which suggest that he likely knew better but chose not to follow standard procedures.

Thank you for confirming how totally clueless you are.

Markiewicz used a stupid method designed to OBSCURE the vast difference between the fumigation chambers and so-called homicidal gas chambers. Markiewicz's results were near zero across board, even in chambers that have visible blue stains all over the walls.



If Fred Leuchter's samples were too large and too diluted, how then did he get high readings from the fumigation chamber samples?

[Archie]

CJ, your repeated and egregious AI plagiarism is not acceptable. We are not "anti-AI" but if we want to talk to ChatGPT, we can all do this whenever we please. You do not add any value as an intermediary.

Going forward, you need to start reading some actual sources yourself and expressing your own original thoughts. If you post more unsourced material plagiarized from AI, you will be shown the door.

[ConfusedJew]

CJ, your repeated and egregious AI plagiarism is not acceptable. We are not "anti-AI" but if we want to talk to ChatGPT, we can all do this whenever we please. You do not add any value as an intermediary.

Going forward, you need to start reading some actual sources yourself and expressing your own original thoughts. If you post more unsourced material plagiarized from AI, you will be shown the door.

It's not plagiarized and no you couldn't talk to ChatGPT in the same way that I do because you don't seem to understand the science.

I've done the research with ChatGPT and then I edit and modify it to make it easier to read to match your level of reading comprehension.

Do you know what this plagiarized chart is suggesting? Can you explain it to me? I can easily explain to you why it's misleading. I want to see how well you understand that chart and then I'll gladly respond to that.

Debunking the Leuchter report is not even necessary for the argument but I will go out of my way to look that up in the morning.

The better question is why do you think the Polish forensic chemists found residue of cyanide in the killing chambers but not in the control samples? How did that get there?

The fact that there was no Prussian Blue in the killing chambers only strengthens the case. Rudolf was looking at it all wrong and backwards as I clearly explained already.

[ConfusedJew]

Also I already clearly explained why he didn't "OBSCURE" the test results but you didn't understand it. Go ask AI yourself.

It wasn't even necessary to do that test, kind of like how the Leuchter report doesn't even matter. Anybody can write a wrong scientific paper based on a flawed method that says whatever you want it to say. I don't have the time to go through every flawed study out there. You guys are prolific and impressively creative in some ways.

It's like saying that his test results were invalid because he didn't test for snake poison while conducting an autopsy because he already had evidence that the victim died from a gunshot wound. It just doesn't matter.

[Wetzelrad]

ChatGPT might have hallucinated. I agree that it didn't make sense but that's why we go back and forth to discover the truth when there is new information to add or we need to correct a mistake.

Your AI took one of Germar Rudolf's core arguments against homicidal gassings, inverted the facts, and then gave it back to you as an argument supporting homicidal gassings. This came right after you assured us that ChatGPT "can think for itself". So did it think this would be a clever way to trick you? Clearly it worked, because even after HansHill pointed it out to you you still didn't understand what it had done. But now you say it was just a "hallucination".

The whole thing is so perverse, I don't know how you carry on like this.

[HansHill]

Claim 1: The lack of Prussian Blue staining on the walls of Krema II proves that mass gassings did not take place.

Rebuttal: Prussian Blue (ferric ferrocyanide) is not a reliable marker for cyanide exposure in this particular case. Prussian Blue only forms when iron ions and cyanide interact under specific conditions. It requires a specific pH, exposure time, humidity, and surface type. If you disagree or don't know about that, I can look into it further.

Yes I disagree with this premise. It must be shown which parameter(s) was unsuitable for the formation of Prussian Blue, and why. Your AI mentioned pH, exposure time (see below), humidity and surface type (material?) - I'm happy for you to take any one of these and explain why this parameter was an impediment to Prussian Blue forming in Krema II. Since pH was the first one it mentioned, please start there. Why did the pH of Krema II prevent the formation of Prussian Blue?

The formation of Prussian Blue requires alkaline or neutral pH. Under acidic conditions, hydrogen cyanide (HCN) remains volatile and less reactive with iron compounds and HCN tends to evaporate rather than form stable cyanide salts.

Krema II walls were made of concrete, which initially has a high pH (~12) due to the calcium hydroxide in cement.
However, over time, and especially in damp, enclosed environments like morgues or gas chambers, carbonation (CO₂ from air + water + concrete) lowers the surface pH by forming calcium carbonate. This process can reduce the surface pH to around 8 or even lower, especially in porous, wet environments.

Furthermore, the acidic nature of the victims’ bodily fluids, urine, and decomposition gases could further acidify the chamber surface over time, pushing the pH below the ideal range for Prussian Blue formation.

You are correct in that the formation of PB is sensitive to pH and prefers alkaline conditions, as is demonstrated in the literature. This "sensitivity" is also not linear, as is demonstrated below:



We also know that freshly poured mortar is in the exact range prescribed for the formation of Prussian Blue, with yes some reduction over time (months to years to decades, not minutes or hours)



I want to zone into one word you used here, which is "damp", as later in your remarks you note the conditions were dry. From that post further down i quote you

"Cyanide also doesn't easily stick to dry, cold concrete."
CJ - 23rd May

So to be very clear, the conditions we are describing were indeed damp, and not dry. Dampness would be caused by the morgues being underground to begin with, condensation from any purported victims in the room exhaling, and indeed the claim that sonderkomandos washed off the walls and ceilings and so we can expect large puddles and pools of water almost entirely during this process.

I will make a slight deviation here, and tell you that these damp conditions, along with the alkalinity, further support the formation of PB.

per Germar Rudolf:



I've never heard of the urination / defecation / bodily fluids argument before so this is somewhat novel. You will be arguing that the presence of bodily fluids such as blood, urine etc reduced the pH by 3 - 5. You must also argue that this holds for the floor, walls, and ceiling (!). Additionally, this seems to be in complete contradiction to the claims, in that the Sonderkomandos job was to rinse away this urine / blood / feces etc, surely prohibiting any meaningful impact of their presence on the pH.