ConfusedJew wrote: ↑Thu May 22, 2025 8:21 pm
OK, I'm doing preliminary research here. I imagine that I won't get to the perfect answer immediately but we can go back and forth until we either agree or figure out what we disagree with and why. If you are OK with that, we shall proceed.
This is perfectly acceptable to me, however I must warn you before we begin I can say with almost 100% certainty this is all AI output. I don't say this to disparage you but to warn you;
Do you think I haven't "debated" against ChatGPT before? I have already had ChatGPT admit to me that gassings are not supported under the physical conditions observable. You might counter that ChatGPT is biased dependent on the types of inputs it receives, and yes that is understandable but that works against you also - in that the training data it is pulling from is overwhelmingly censored against my position or guardrailed against delivering my position honestly. If I detect this, I will ask you to deviate from the AI responses and explore the material directly yourself.
The dialectical method refers originally to dialogue between people holding different points of view about a subject but wishing to arrive at the truth through reasoned argument. Dialectic resembles debate, but the concept excludes subjective elements such as emotional appeal and rhetoric. It has its origins in ancient philosophy and continued to be developed in the Middle Ages.
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 walls of the delousing chambers show Prussian Blue because they were exposed to much higher, repeated concentrations of Zyklon B over long periods for lice treatment. The gas chambers, in contrast, were exposed to Zyklon B in much lower concentrations and for far shorter durations (often under 30 minutes) during mass killings.
"Much higher, repeated concentrations"
The claim is that quantities of HcN were released into the Gas Chambers large enough to kill 2,000 people at a rate faster than that of a highly controlled USA prison execution, and in the volume sufficient to overcome the condensation present in the room. This was also repeated hundreds of times, multiple times per day. This all leads us to
high concentrations over a very large exposure time. I challenge you to explain your AI's rationale in arriving at low concentrations and low exposure time, as this is faulty before we go anywhere else.
Claim 2: The Polish forensic team intentionally omitted total cyanide measurements in order to obscure findings.
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. They explicitly stated that Prussian Blue is not a suitable measure for short term cyanide exposure like that in homicidal gassings.
Have you found any evidence that specifically shows they suppressed or were dishonest with the study?
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.
Claim 3: Long-term stable residues (like Prussian Blue) are more trustworthy than short-lived compounds in determining past cyanide exposure.
This claim reverses the forensic relationship.
I don't know what "reverses the forensic relationship" means, so either you or your LLM will be expected to explain this.
Forensic analysis focuses on the relevant markers for a specific event. Prussian Blue is only formed under certain prolonged exposure conditions which did not apply to gas chamber killings.
Short-term, low-concentration cyanide exposure, which would be used in homicidal gassings, would leave behind different chemical traces that are harder to detect over time.
"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.
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.
