Challenge for Believers

[HansHill]

This is not the slamdunk that you think it is, either. Arguing for non-uniformity in the application or permeability of the paint, or a semi-permeable paint would lead to an uncontrollable "spectrum" of varying degrees to which HcN permeated, and in turn can be detected, across the walls and ceiling.

This means, you in turn would have to account for why this "spectrum" did not produce deep blues, as well as deep absences! Why only deep absences? One could easily imagine a scenario where the very corners of the chamber were hastily or lazily missed or misapplied. Remember also, that your findings of HcN are at or below the detection limit across the entire set.

But all of that is redundant - this is your hypothesis. So explain more to us about this "spectrum", and why it appears indeed "all or nothing", ie nothing, and not at all like a spectrum in practice?

[bombsaway]

AI response for you to debunk if you can. I'm not familiar enough with the science but as with Stubble, if your assumptions are correct I think you should be able to make the scientific argument successfully.

The formation of Prussian Blue isn't a simple linear relationship with HCN exposure - it exhibits threshold behavior. This chemical reaction follows higher-order kinetics, meaning the reaction rate increases exponentially (not linearly) with concentration.
For visible Prussian Blue formation, you need:

Sufficient HCN concentration above a critical threshold
Extended exposure time
Appropriate moisture conditions
Correct pH environment
Available iron compounds

Even with variable paint application, if the permeability reduces HCN concentration below this critical threshold everywhere, you won't see visible staining anywhere - just trace amounts detectable by sensitive analytical methods. The detection limit for analytical instruments is typically orders of magnitude lower than what's required for visible color formation.
This explains why the results appear "all-or-nothing" in practice. It's similar to how a partially effective water repellent might allow enough moisture through to register on a sensitive moisture meter but still prevent visible water damage or mold growth.
The uniform absence of visible Prussian Blue despite detection of trace HCN compounds is actually consistent with a functional protective barrier that kept concentrations below the threshold required for visible reaction products while still allowing minimal molecular penetration.

[Archie]

So this is what you have to disprove if you're taking an all or nothing position, which I find to be somewhat comical and indicative of your reductionist approach to the entire problem.

Remember that my position is merely that it's possible for gassings to have occurred without this sort of major staining that you saw at other delousing chambers. That's not a hard statement that it did happen, but a maybe. The fact that gas was sucked out of the room very quickly compared to the dedicated chambers is another confounding variable. Your assertion is it's impossible, or deeply improbable, so you have to account for all these factors. Your assertion is much stronger.

"The fact that the gas was sucked out of the room very quickly..."

Weak excuse. There were supposedly hundreds of gassings in LK1 and the ventilation system was no different than what you find in an ordinary morgue. Not to mention the other hindrances to efficient ventilation.

viewtopic.php?t=162

"Your assertion is much stronger."

You made an implicit assertion about there being a special paint which I think you have just brought up to waste time.

Here's how to make a real argument.

1) This Dachau fumigation chamber doesn't have Prussian blue.
2) The reason for this is because of X.
3) X also applies to LK1.

You have cited Dachau multiple times now as being a relevant example yet you have not even attempted to argue 2 or 3. Probably because you know this special paint argument is a dead end.

[Archie]

AI response for you to debunk if you can. I'm not familiar enough with the science but as with Stubble, if your assumptions are correct I think you should be able to make the scientific argument successfully.

The formation of Prussian Blue isn't a simple linear relationship with HCN exposure - it exhibits threshold behavior. This chemical reaction follows higher-order kinetics, meaning the reaction rate increases exponentially (not linearly) with concentration.
For visible Prussian Blue formation, you need:

Sufficient HCN concentration above a critical threshold
Extended exposure time
Appropriate moisture conditions
Correct pH environment
Available iron compounds

Even with variable paint application, if the permeability reduces HCN concentration below this critical threshold everywhere, you won't see visible staining anywhere - just trace amounts detectable by sensitive analytical methods. The detection limit for analytical instruments is typically orders of magnitude lower than what's required for visible color formation.
This explains why the results appear "all-or-nothing" in practice. It's similar to how a partially effective water repellent might allow enough moisture through to register on a sensitive moisture meter but still prevent visible water damage or mold growth.
The uniform absence of visible Prussian Blue despite detection of trace HCN compounds is actually consistent with a functional protective barrier that kept concentrations below the threshold required for visible reaction products while still allowing minimal molecular penetration.

Lol, the classic BA formula.

-Refuses to make any definitive argument so that he can't be pinned down on anything
-Tries to bait revisionists into presenting lengthy analyses so that he can then go into critique mode
-When he loses, copies and pastes AI

[HansHill]

LOL - we also just had a whole thread up about AI being manipulable (not that I would accuse BA of that)

But no, I am also not a Chemist and therefore any exercise like this would be above my IQ and pay grade! I would much rather mill through the expert literature and read two experts, for example Dr Green and Mr Rudolf duking it out on this point. Unfortunately and very curious that Dr Green doesn't present this argument, and the only mention of "paint" in the literature that i can see is Bailer's debunked blue-paint hypothesis.

[bombsaway]

None of us here are experts on the science, yeah, so it's hard to gauge all of this.

Are the ventilation systems in Krema I gas chamber similar to those in II-V? Specify please.

I think the coating of paint is a possible confounding variable that you haven't addressed, and even Rudolph hasn't. We don't know if the walls in Dachau have 0% HCN as well, and we don't have full samples from the destroyed gas chamber walls either. Maybe some parts had higher concentration, idk. I think it's foolhardy to make strong assertions based on this evidence is my main point.

[Archie]

None of us here are experts on the science, yeah, so it's hard to gauge all of this.

Are the ventilation systems in Krema I gas chamber similar to those in II-V? Specify please.

I think the coating of paint is a possible confounding variable that you haven't addressed, and even Rudolph hasn't. We don't know if the walls in Dachau have 0% HCN as well, and we don't have full samples from the destroyed gas chamber walls either. Maybe some parts had higher concentration, idk. I think it's foolhardy to make strong assertions based on this evidence is my main point.

There are many specialized fields that come up when fact-checking the Holocaust. No one person has been formally trained as a historian, chemist, engineer, archaeologist, physician, demographer, etc. Moreover, often the questions that come up are so highly specialized most experts don't even know much about them. Germar had to look into specialized research on the properties of concrete, etc., as this is not information that chemists learn in graduate school.

An intelligent person should be able to 1) learn the basics of the issue in question, 2) read the arguments of those with better training, including those on both sides of the issue. I'm not a chemist, but I can follow most of the arguments reasonably well. I can see which points are accepted by both sides and which points are disputed. And I can usually tell who's blowing smoke, who's grasping at straws, etc. When Markiewicz says "golly, I just can't figure out how this Prussian blue got here in this Zyklon B fumigation chamber," I can tell that's a load of crap.

[bombsaway]

Yup and I do this with the AI. I don't think anyone has discussed paint physics, so it's fair for me to do.

[TlsMS93]

Again, this talk that if someone doesn't have a PhD in something, they should limit themselves to its insignificance and therefore we should close the forum, as if knowledge were something restricted to certain people with the cognitive and financial means to access it, that's dead, knowledge is now democratized, no one needs to study medicine to have access to books like it was in the past.

Why don't we know the % of HCN in Dachau? Because who cares about revisionist guesses? This is a lame excuse, there is no reason for a small sample to be taken and analyzed, or are there human ashes on the wall and therefore the memory of the victims should be respected?

It is very difficult for exterminationists to argue what would be the reasons for a place that is said to have gassed 500 thousand people not to have a large scale of HCN but rather the same level of residue as in common camp places. To say that there was no time for the gas to reach the walls because the crowd was breathing and sucking in all the exhaled air is incredibly bizarre. If that were the case, they wouldn't need a watertight door or even ventilation at all.

[bombsaway]

Look guys, if you want to understand why I think you're being foolish here we should take it back to the thread topic.

The thread challenge was are mass movements of people always evidenced? I addressed the challenge directly, showing that even smaller mass movements, like of thousands of people are evidenced. The revisionist claim is it happened to millions, eg the Reinhardt Jews, who went into Russia and disappeared totally in terms of evidence trail (witness and documentary). There is nothing remotely similar to this from a comparative point of view.

When you say, hey look at the walls, they should have HCN stains, and I say not necessarily, I can point to actual delousing chambers exposed to much higher concentrations for much longer periods of time that don't have those stains. And sure you have your various arguments for why this is not applicable, but the point is I can actually point to something.

You can't point to anything with the disappearing Jews. It's unprecedented, by many orders of magnitude.

[Nessie]

There is a reliable, credible, very widely used way of determining if Green or Rudolf is correct.

I have also not seen any evidence that every single delousing chamber where Zyklon B is used turns blue, as Dr Terry suggested that is not the case.

[Nazgul]

I have also not seen any evidence that every single delousing chamber where Zyklon B is used turns blue, as Dr Terry suggested that is not the case.

How many delousing chambers do you know of? Prussian blue is seen out the outside of the brick one at Auschwitz; some blue is seen also in the Stutthof delousing chamber. This is the one below.

Iron(III) hexacyanoferrate(II) (Prussian Blue) has the chemical formula Fe4[Fe(CN)6]3. The red colour of bricks is caused by the presence of iron oxide in the clay. There is a reaction between the cyanide and the iron in the brick which results in Prussian Blue. Bricks with little iron will not colour neither will other materials without iron.

[Nessie]

Until there is evidence of every single delousing chamber displaying blue staining, it is not proven that happens.

Evidence, you know, that inconvenient thing that tells us if something happened or not. Revisionists hate it, but it is necessary.

[HansHill]

Until there is evidence of every single delousing chamber displaying blue staining, it is not proven that happens.

Evidence, you know, that inconvenient thing that tells us if something happened or not. Revisionists hate it, but it is necessary.

[Nazgul]

Until there is evidence of every single delousing chamber displaying blue staining, it is not proven that happens.

They would stain only if the walls are porous or contain iron as most bricks do.