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

[Callafangers]

I sought after the most agreeable, fact-centered statement I could on this matter (after some in-depth LLM conversations aiming at precisely that), and came up with the following:

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 above is something I think even exterminationists across-the-board have to necessarily agree with. It's simply true and it's reality is harmful for the 'Holocaust' narrative, which makes it especially curious that this has been allowed to persist for so long, basically unchallenged.

More information, here: https://wiki.codohforum.com/pages/index ... _Chemistry

[Nessie]

The Chemistry of Auschwitz is not harmful to the Holocaust narrative. Rudolf concludes his book admitting that he may be wrong and that further work is needed, he has no evidence of the actual usage of the Kremas and his primary argument is logically flawed.

[Nazgul]

he has no evidence of the actual usage of the Kremas and his primary argument is logically flawed.

Smoke out the chimney, bodies burned; the function of all crematoria.

[Callafangers]

The Chemistry of Auschwitz is not harmful to the Holocaust narrative. Rudolf concludes his book admitting that he may be wrong and that further work is needed, he has no evidence of the actual usage of the Kremas and his primary argument is logically flawed.

I think you know that what you're saying here is an intellectually dishonest "cope". Any thinking person can understand that:

1. IF there is clear evidence that FeCN forms under certain conditions, and
2. IF those conditions were far more prevalent in the alleged homicidal 'gas chambers' than other areas known to have had significant CN exposure, and
3. IF those areas with less optimal conditions are measured to have extremely high levels of FeCN...

• THEN: we should expect very high concentrations of FeCN in the alleged 'gas chambers'

But we know for certain this is not the case. Rudolf's humility on the matter (him being a scientist, allowing some margin of error) doesn't diminish the evidence he's presented, and the fact it's held up to intensive peer scrutiny, totally unscathed (Green, Markiewicz, etc.).

[Callafangers]

he has no evidence of the actual usage of the Kremas and his primary argument is logically flawed.

This is addressed (with sources) at the Wiki article provided in the OP:

Revisionists also challenge the interpretation of documentary evidence often cited in support of Kula columns, such as the inventory reference to “4 Drahtnetzeinschiebevorrichtung” (translated by mainstream historians as “wire mesh introduction devices”). Critics like Samuel Crowell argue this term, more accurately translated as “wire net sliding device,” likely refers to benign safety features like removable mesh screens for ventilation openings or emergency exits, consistent with anti-gas shelter literature of the time[21], rather than devices for Zyklon B introduction. This case for benign interpretation is further supported in light of general modifications taking place at Auschwitz-Birkenau throughout March 1943 across Crematoria 2, 4, and 5, driven by a need to improve airflow, containment, sanitation, and safety for normal morgue and camp functions, and disinfection processes.[22] Multipurpose potential as an air raid shelter is supported by at least one witness.[23]

https://wiki.codohforum.com/pages/index ... _Chemistry

[Nessie]

The Chemistry of Auschwitz is not harmful to the Holocaust narrative. Rudolf concludes his book admitting that he may be wrong and that further work is needed, he has no evidence of the actual usage of the Kremas and his primary argument is logically flawed.

I think you know that what you're saying here is an intellectually dishonest "cope". Any thinking person can understand that:

1. IF there is clear evidence that FeCN forms under certain conditions, and
2. IF those conditions were far more prevalent in the alleged homicidal 'gas chambers' than other areas known to have had significant CN exposure, and
3. IF those areas with less optimal conditions are measured to have extremely high levels of FeCN...

• THEN: we should expect very high concentrations of FeCN in the alleged 'gas chambers'

But we know for certain this is not the case. Rudolf's humility on the matter (him being a scientist, allowing some margin of error) doesn't diminish the evidence he's presented, and the fact it's held up to intensive peer scrutiny, totally unscathed (Green, Markiewicz, etc.).

I note the big "IF". The evidence of usage proves that homicidal gassings left less residue than some people would expect.

[Nessie]

he has no evidence of the actual usage of the Kremas and his primary argument is logically flawed.

This is addressed (with sources) at the Wiki article provided in the OP:

Revisionists also challenge the interpretation of documentary evidence often cited in support of Kula columns, such as the inventory reference to “4 Drahtnetzeinschiebevorrichtung” (translated by mainstream historians as “wire mesh introduction devices”). Critics like Samuel Crowell argue this term, more accurately translated as “wire net sliding device,” likely refers to benign safety features like removable mesh screens for ventilation openings or emergency exits, consistent with anti-gas shelter literature of the time[21], rather than devices for Zyklon B introduction. This case for benign interpretation is further supported in light of general modifications taking place at Auschwitz-Birkenau throughout March 1943 across Crematoria 2, 4, and 5, driven by a need to improve airflow, containment, sanitation, and safety for normal morgue and camp functions, and disinfection processes.[22] Multipurpose potential as an air raid shelter is supported by at least one witness.[23]

https://wiki.codohforum.com/pages/index ... _Chemistry

I know that so-called revisionists cannot agree on what the Kremas were actually used for, 1943-4. An eyewitness who speaks to sheltering in the gas chambers, during an air raid, is not evidence to support the claim the Kremas were not used as gas chambers.

[Callafangers]

I know that so-called revisionists cannot agree on what the Kremas were actually used for, 1943-4. An eyewitness who speaks to sheltering in the gas chambers, during an air raid, is not evidence to support the claim the Kremas were not used as gas chambers.

It is you who claims the architectural features and deliveries these buildings had applied necessarily to them being used for homicidal gassing rather than for functions like that of an air raid shelter, or for disinfestation purposes, etc.

The significance of the evidence presented is that you cannot say these architectural features and deliveries count as "criminal traces" when it's clear there are perfectly mundane explanations available which are supported by official documentation.

[Callafangers]

I note the big "IF". The evidence of usage proves that homicidal gassings left less residue than some people would expect.

You're free to challenge any of the "IFs" but top-level scientists in your camp (Markiewicz, Green) have already tried and failed spectacularly.

[HansHill]

The Chemistry of Auschwitz is not harmful to the Holocaust narrative. Rudolf concludes his book admitting that he may be wrong and that further work is needed, he has no evidence of the actual usage of the Kremas and his primary argument is logically flawed.

Rudolf's position being falsifiable only serves to strengthen it, not weaken it. We know you don't understand this, but everybody else here does.

[Nessie]

I know that so-called revisionists cannot agree on what the Kremas were actually used for, 1943-4. An eyewitness who speaks to sheltering in the gas chambers, during an air raid, is not evidence to support the claim the Kremas were not used as gas chambers.

It is you who claims the architectural features and deliveries these buildings had applied necessarily to them being used for homicidal gassing rather than for functions like that of an air raid shelter, or for disinfestation purposes, etc.

The significance of the evidence presented is that you cannot say these architectural features and deliveries count as "criminal traces" when it's clear there are perfectly mundane explanations available which are supported by official documentation.

Documentation recording the construction of heated undressing rooms, ventilated gas chambers and ovens for mass corpse cremations, with barracks for property, for a special action, that is secretive and involves unfit prisoners, Jews and Hungarians, are clearly criminal traces. Add in the circumstantial evidence of mass transports, selections and those not needed for work disappearing from camp and transport records. Add in 100% of the witnesses, Nazi and Jew, speak to gassings. Finally, there is evidence of motive and opportunity.

You have nothing like that volume of evidence. Instead, so-called revisionists speculate, cherry-pick and contradict each other.

[Nessie]

I note the big "IF". The evidence of usage proves that homicidal gassings left less residue than some people would expect.

You're free to challenge any of the "IFs" but top-level scientists in your camp (Markiewicz, Green) have already tried and failed spectacularly.

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]

The Chemistry of Auschwitz is not harmful to the Holocaust narrative. Rudolf concludes his book admitting that he may be wrong and that further work is needed, he has no evidence of the actual usage of the Kremas and his primary argument is logically flawed.

Rudolf's position being falsifiable only serves to strengthen it, not weaken it. We know you don't understand this, but everybody else here does.

He admits he may be wrong, and everyone, except so-called revisionists understand that he is wrong, because of the evidence of usage.

[HansHill]

Contender for the Hall of Fame.

[Callafangers]

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.