A request to Confused Jew

[Nessie]

Yep - and there you have it.

Anybody without Chemistry 102 cannot possibly disagree with Dr Green because of appeal to authority.

Misrepresentation, again.

A layperson can of course disagree with Dr Green, but they are not in a position to determine with a high degree of certainty that Green is wrong. The same applies to Rudolf and if that lay person agrees with either of them. Lay people, bickering over which one is correct, is just that. The same also applies to experts, as they can also be wrong. So, there is no appeal to authority in my argument.

The most credible and reliable way to determine which one is correct, is to look to the evidence as to what happened. That is the part you hate, because you know it is not in your favour. Mass gassings are well evidenced and when so-called revisionists try to evidence another usage, they fall apart, into disagreement, often contradicting each other and, despite hundreds of thousands of people having been into the buildings, they cannot find one eyewitness they accept.

Then it gets even worse for revisionists, as Rudolf's argument is logically flawed. Just because he cannot work out how mass gassings were possible, whilst leaving little residue, does not therefore mean mass gassings did not happen.

Rudolf has a logically flawed argument, that is contradicted by the evidence of usage. Of course, because of that, he is wrong.

[ConfusedJew]

Yep - and there you have it.

Anybody without Chemistry 102 cannot possibly disagree with Dr Green because of appeal to authority.

Misrepresentation, again.

A layperson can of course disagree with Dr Green, but they are not in a position to determine with a high degree of certainty that Green is wrong. The same applies to Rudolf and if that lay person agrees with either of them. Lay people, bickering over which one is correct, is just that. The same also applies to experts, as they can also be wrong. So, there is no appeal to authority in my argument.

The most credible and reliable way to determine which one is correct, is to look to the evidence as to what happened. That is the part you hate, because you know it is not in your favour.

I think HansHill is agreeing with you. He's saying don't make the appeal to authority just look at the evidence and interpretations of that.

[Nazgul]

LLMs now have PhD level intelligence across many fields, including chemistry, and can explain very complicated things to you simply. I have basic chemistry level knowledge, admittedly with some gaps, but I can learn very quickly especially with this new technology.

Reading something and having understanding, comprehension, literacy on the subject is needed. At that level, even chemistry is highly mathematical, the used of advanced statistics and calculus to understand wave functions. You wont really know if AI is duping you unless you have the background of the paradigm under discussion. Anyhow good luck.

[ConfusedJew]

Reading something and having understanding, comprehension, literacy on the subject is needed. At that level, even chemistry is highly mathematical, the used of advanced statistics and calculus to understand wave functions. You wont really know if AI is duping you unless you have the background of the paradigm under discussion. Anyhow good luck.

You can audit the logic. Don't trust the conclusions, but you can identify the arguments that they make and verify how true they are (or not).

[Keen]

I don't claim to be an expert... But I learn quick and can figure out complicated scientific concepts.

LIke how much physical evidence exists in the "huge mass graves" of Belzec, Chelmno, Ponary, Sobibor and Treblinka II?

[ConfusedJew]

I don't claim to be an expert... But I learn quick and can figure out complicated scientific concepts.

LIke how much physical evidence exists in the "huge mass graves" of Belzec, Chelmno, Ponary, Sobibor and Treblinka II?

Don't want to derail this discussion so I made a new thread to address that point which I would invite you to discuss here:

https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=397

Separately, I sent HansHill a private message with a response to his request to look at the Rudolf and Greene correspondences and I am still waiting for an answer.

[HansHill]

I don't claim to be an expert... But I learn quick and can figure out complicated scientific concepts.

LIke how much physical evidence exists in the "huge mass graves" of Belzec, Chelmno, Ponary, Sobibor and Treblinka II?

Don't want to derail this discussion so I made a new thread to address that point which I would invite you to discuss here:

https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=397

Separately, I sent HansHill a private message with a response to his request to look at the Rudolf and Greene correspondences and I am still waiting for an answer.

I won't be responding to DM's about debate topics!

[ConfusedJew]

Here is a summary of the main points of tension in the Rudolf - Greene exchanges in the late 1990s. The exchange unfolded mostly through online publications and rebuttals.

The exchange was like a public academic-style exchange, where Rudolf would publish or revise his claims, and Green would publish structured rebuttals with citations, chemical equations, and methodological critiques. Rudolf never responded in a format that passed peer review; Green, by contrast, presented his work for public scrutiny and academic reference.

The core of the debate between Germar Rudolf and Dr. Richard Green centered on the presence—or alleged absence—of cyanide compounds in the ruins of the gas chambers at Auschwitz. Rudolf, a trained chemist claimed in The Rudolf Report that the low levels of Prussian Blue (a stable iron-cyanide compound) found in gas chamber walls—especially compared to the much higher concentrations found in delousing chambers—prove that mass homicidal gassings did not occur. He argued that if the rooms had been used for executions with Zyklon B, the cyanide residues would be higher and chemically more obvious.

Green explained that Prussian Blue forms only under very specific chemical and environmental conditions: long exposure to hydrogen cyanide, alkaline surfaces, high humidity, and iron compounds present in the wall material. These conditions were consistently met in delousing chambers but not in homicidal gas chambers, where exposure was brief, the walls were not chemically conducive to blue staining, and cleaning efforts were frequent. Green also pointed out that even small levels of cyanide found in the gas chamber walls were consistent with limited, high-intensity exposure designed to kill humans quickly—not lice.

Unlike Rudolf's methodology, mainstream forensic studies (e.g. by Jan Markiewicz and the Krakow Institute) followed scientific protocols and arrived at conclusions that align with documented Nazi construction blueprints, eyewitness testimonies, and SS confessions.

Contrary to popular belief in this community, the Krakow team did not suppress results. They understood that Prussian Blue formation is rare and misleading in certain conditions. Instead they focused on total cyanide ion concentration, which was detectable even without the blue pigment. Green and others verified this approach—because it reflects real chemistry.

We already mostly discussed this on the forum, but this clearly points out that the lack of Prussian Blue does not indicate, let alone prove, that HCN was not used in the gas chambers. The detection of HCN residues, even without Prussian Blue, strongly suggests that the mainstream historical narrative is correct.

[Fred Ziffel]

well folks, you have a choice. You can believe what a chemist who did extensive research on the subject or believe Confused Jew's ability to cut and paste

[ConfusedJew]

well folks, you have a choice. You can believe what a chemist who did extensive research on the subject or believe Confused Jew's ability to cut and paste

Richard J. Green is a highly qualified American chemist who publicly refuted Germar Rudolf’s claims. Green earned his Ph.D. in physical chemistry from Stanford and authored key reports debunking the pseudoscience behind both the Leuchter Report and the Rudolf Report. He prepared an expert affidavit for Deborah Lipstadt’s defense in the highly publicized Irving libel trial. Green’s work was used and trusted by courts and historians as authoritative rebuttals to denial claims.

In contrast, Germar Rudolf studied chemistry at the University of Bonn (Germany) and worked toward a doctorate at the prestigious Max Planck Institute for Solid State Research in Stuttgart. His doctoral work was in the area of crystal structure and materials science — not forensic chemistry, toxicology, or historical forensics.

He was a legitimate graduate-level chemist and research assistant, but he never completed his doctorate officially. The university denied awarding it due to his Holocaust denial activities. He did not conduct peer-reviewed research on cyanide residues in gas chambers published in scientific journals. His so-called “Rudolf Report” was self-published and rejected by credible forensic chemists.

How do you want to compare the credibility of Rudolf vs. Greene? You can look at the scientific arguments, where I believe that Rudolf's arguments don't hold up. Based on credentials, Green's are somewhat better and were accepted by the court system. I prefer to focus on the science because I don't have full confidence in the court system even though he won there.

[HansHill]

Here is a summary of the main points of tension in the Rudolf

This exchange offers nothing new, and in fact brings us right back from page 5 to page 1 of this thread.

....where exposure was brief, the walls were not chemically conducive to blue staining, and cleaning efforts were frequent.....

Please ask your LLM (again) how it arrived at short exposure times, why specifically the walls were not "chemically conducive" to blue staining, and how washing the walls impedes formation, rather than accelerates formation, as would be expected.

[ConfusedJew]

Here is a summary of the main points of tension in the Rudolf

This exchange offers nothing new, and in fact brings us right back from page 5 to page 1 of this thread.

....where exposure was brief, the walls were not chemically conducive to blue staining, and cleaning efforts were frequent.....

Please ask your LLM (again) how it arrived at short exposure times, why specifically the walls were not "chemically conducive" to blue staining, and how washing the walls impedes formation, rather than accelerates formation, as would be expected.

You asked me to look at the Green vs Rudolf exchanges which I did but here is a deeper answer to your questions.

1. Historical documents & testimony show that homicidal gas chambers were used for rapid executions: exposure was 20–30 minutes per batch, sometimes less. In contrast, the delousing chambers used Zyklon B for hours or days to kill lice in clothing — meaning much higher cumulative cyanide exposure to the walls.

2. Cyanide reacts with iron in porous walls to form stable blue ferric ferrocyanide (Prussian blue) slowly. Short contact times with gas and limited moisture drastically limit formation of visible blue staining. So, repeated short gassings do not produce the same chemical conditions as continuous fumigation.

3. Prussian blue forms best under high cyanide concentration, high moisture, alkaline conditions (basic pH), and long exposure time. The gas chamber walls were plaster, lime mortar, or cement — slightly alkaline, but not optimally reactive. They were not deeply porous like bricks in some delousing buildings. The chambers were often cold and damp, which can actually slow the chemical reaction that forms the Prussian Blue.

4. Washing walls after gassing removes or dilutes surface cyanide before it can bind deeply with iron in the substrate. It does not convert free cyanide into Prussian blue more efficiently — it physically removes the reactant before full reaction occurs. Also, camp staff hosed down walls to clean blood, feces, and body fluids, which diluted residues further.

It doesn't look at all to me that Prussian Blue would have been expected to form in a gas chamber meant to kill people quickly. The LLMs can go deeper on (1) the actual chemical equations, (2) the Krakow lab report results, and (3) how the courts summarized Rudolf’s errors. Let me know if you have an issue with any of these.

[HansHill]

1. Historical documents & testimony show that homicidal gas chambers were used for rapid executions: exposure was 20–30 minutes per batch, sometimes less. In contrast, the delousing chambers used Zyklon B for hours or days to kill lice in clothing — meaning much higher cumulative cyanide exposure to the walls.

2. Cyanide reacts with iron in porous walls to form stable blue ferric ferrocyanide (Prussian blue) slowly. Short contact times with gas and limited moisture drastically limit formation of visible blue staining. So, repeated short gassings do not produce the same chemical conditions as continuous fumigation.

3. Prussian blue forms best under high cyanide concentration, high moisture, alkaline conditions (basic pH), and long exposure time. The gas chamber walls were plaster, lime mortar, or cement — slightly alkaline, but not optimally reactive. They were not deeply porous like bricks in some delousing buildings. The chambers were often cold and damp, which can actually slow the chemical reaction that forms the Prussian Blue.

4. Washing walls after gassing removes or dilutes surface cyanide before it can bind deeply with iron in the substrate. It does not convert free cyanide into Prussian blue more efficiently — it physically removes the reactant before full reaction occurs. Also, camp staff hosed down walls to clean blood, feces, and body fluids, which diluted residues further.

It doesn't look at all to me that Prussian Blue would have been expected to form in a gas chamber meant to kill people quickly. The LLMs can go deeper on (1) the actual chemical equations, (2) the Krakow lab report results, and (3) how the courts summarized Rudolf’s errors. Let me know if you have an issue with any of these.

1 - the LLM is equating execution time with exposure time. This absolutely is not the case. For a start, the ventilation shafts in the Kremas were low to the ground. This matters for two reasons: HcN is lighter than air, and the bodies would have collapsed against the shafts preventing an immediate evavuation of the gas. This all points to a far longer exposure time than merely the execution time.

On this, Rudolf runs two simulations to calculate masonry exposure times, ie the direct exposure time for the walls to inferface with HcN, and the expected hydrogen cyanide concentrations. The two simulations are run at 14 minutes and 70 minutes respectively.

Under the former, the expected hydrogen cyanide concentrations are roughly equal between the delousing chamber walls (16%) and the homicidal gas chambers (13%). However when running the longer simulation, the values come out to being 4 times higher (!) in the homicidal gas chamber, than the delousing chamber.

From Rudolf:

As a result of the high moisture content of these unheated underground
morgues, one can see that even with such short gassing times, the walls of a
homicidal gas chamber accumulate a hydrogen-cyanide content which would
be quite comparable to that of a disinfestation chamber. Much less hydrogen
cyanide in the quasi-stationary condition of the hypothetical homicidal “gas
chambers” could only be expected, if one were to assume absurdly short and
technically unfeasible gassing times, the application of very small amounts of
Zyklon B, or only very few gassings at all

Chemistry of Auschwitz: Section7.3.2.3. Simulation Calculations

2 - see above

3 - moisture accelerates the formation of PB not impedes it - Green concedes this point.

4 - Washing the walls will only be possible after the full evacuation of the room of a) all the HcN and b) all the bodies. Focusing on b) alone, this would be hours, given that the elevator lift could only support 6 bodies at a time. This time-delay betrays the point, that Prussian Blue was prevented from forming on the walls, and says nothing about the upper walls / ceiling, which as i mentioned before, is where the HcN would tend to accumulate as it is less dense than air.

[bombsaway]

Here's my thinking. If the Nazis had indeed been gassing people in gas chambers disguised as shower rooms, they wouldn't have wanted weird blue stains on the walls which would naturally interfere with such an illusion. If this was an obvious and expected phenomena, they probably would have taken steps to ensure it didn't happen. The delousing chambers at Dachau feature no stains whatsoever, which Rudolf ascribes to a "protective paint". If you're arguing that the Holocaust is impossible based on the lack of staining, you have to eliminate every plausible counter explanation, such as the chambers being painted similarly to the ones at Dachau.

[HansHill]

Here's my thinking. If the Nazis had indeed been gassing people in gas chambers disguised as shower rooms, they wouldn't have wanted weird blue stains on the walls which would naturally interfere with such an illusion. If this was an obvious and expected phenomena, they probably would have taken steps to ensure it didn't happen. The delousing chambers at Dachau feature no stains whatsoever, which Rudolf ascribes to a "protective paint". If you're arguing that the Holocaust is impossible based on the lack of staining, you have to eliminate every plausible counter explanation, such as the chambers being painted similarly to the ones at Dachau.

False equivalence. The Dachau delousing chamber was purpose built using technology and dispersal mechanisms designed by the Degesch company. This would be like pointing to the absence of Prussian Blue in a United States execution chamber. It's simply not expected to form therein.