Markiewicz Report in 1994

[ConfusedJew]

I'm creating a new thread to specifically focus on the 1994 Markiewicz publication. I would prefer if people refrained from inserting a bunch of comments that are off point which is why the last thread got to be so long.

From the last thread, Hans Hill asked why the Markiewicz report was conducted and he agreed that each of the following are "very strong arguments and map onto our current models and understanding of kinetics to a very large degree". If he found out that these were "unsustainable or outright false, it would change the calculus." There was a fifth point that he felt was inconclusive so I am removing that from this thread.

The report was specifically written to refute certain claims from people who denied the Holocaust:

1. There was no significant presence of cyanide in the gas chambers which proves that they were not used to kill humans.
2. Only delousing chambers had high levels of cyanide usage.
3. The presence of Prussian Blue is required to prove that there were homicidal gassings. Turned around, the lack of Prussian Blue is proof that there were no homicidal gassings.
4. The design of the chamber and ventilation made it technically impossible to conduct mass killings with Zyklon B.

They drew the following conclusions from their study:

1. Measurable residues of cyanide remain in the walls of the chambers at Auschwitz, even more than 45 years after use.
2. The residues only appear in localized areas where conditions allowed them to form and persist. This directly contradicts Leuchter's argument that the traces resulted from one-time fumigations.
3. Control samples from living quarters that were also fumigated in 1942 showed no cyanide traces while the gas chambers did not yet even exist.

[Wetzelrad]

For the benefit of anyone who is trying to follow along with the conversation...

This post from May is where ConfusedJew first brought up the blue staining argument:
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=8138#p8138

This 11-page thread "A Request to Confused Jew" is where he was asked to explain the absence of Prussian Blue in the Birkenau gas chambers, with reference to Markiewicz:
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=360

This 23-page thread "Forensic Chemistry" was CJ's attempt to confront some of the same arguments, often invoking Markiewicz:
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=450

And here is HansHill's post referenced above:
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=13480#p13480

[Archie]

For background, see our prior Markiewicz thread (pre-CJ)
https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=122

Also this one on the 1991 leak
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=126

[Callafangers]

1. Measurable residues of cyanide remain in the walls of the chambers at Auschwitz, even more than 45 years after use.

The "measurable residues" are miniscule and cannot support serial homicidal 'gassings'. Notice how the term "measurable" isn't quantified here?

More importantly: Markiewicz did not measure total cyanide, which would have damned his conclusions. Iron-cyanide (FeCN) should have necessarily been included because it is the only form that can be reasonably expected to have remained stable. An exclusive focus on free-form cyanide is an obvious attempt to skew and misrepresent the facts of original cyanide exposure and what can be measured and interpreted decades later.

2. The residues only appear in localized areas where conditions allowed them to form and persist. This directly contradicts Leuchter's argument that the traces resulted from one-time fumigations.

Beyond the repeated focus on "[free-form] cyanide" (and not total cyanide), "one-time fumigations" is not the benchmark for disproof against non-homicidal cyanide exposure. Cyanide was a primary tool for ridding lice, of which hundreds of millions infested every corner of the camp and its facilities, spreading disease.

Not even you can claim ridding lice was not in the top few priorities at Birkenau.

3. Control samples from living quarters that were also fumigated in 1942 showed no cyanide traces while the gas chambers did not yet even exist.

Control samples from inmate barracks did indeed show traces of cyanide, as summarized in this image recently shared by Hans Hill:

wTOAr2i.png (100.11 KiB) Viewed 335 times

The fact that Markiewicz found a building reportedly fumigated but without cyanide detected is likely a reflection of the fact that Markiewicz excludes inconvenient data and analysis from his studies.

[ConfusedJew]

This will take some time to get to the bottom of the report but will you share a direct link to the source of that table, not just a screenshot? I need to do deeper research beyond what is just in that table to really understand the points that you are arguing.

"Systematic research, involving most sensitive analytical methods, undertaken by the Institute confirmed the presence of cyanide compounds in all kinds of gas chamber ruins, even in the basement of Block 11 in Auschwitz, where first, experimental gassing of victims by means of Zyklon B had been carried out. The analysis of control samples, taken from other places (especially from living quarters) yielded unequivocally negative results. For the sake of interpretation several laboratory experiments have been carried out."

We're going to have to look at the sensitivity of the different tests to really be able to compare and contrast results across samples. Markiewicz took that into consideration. Have you guys thought about that yet?

More importantly: Markiewicz did not measure total cyanide, which would have damned his conclusions. Iron-cyanide (FeCN) should have necessarily been included because it is the only form that can be reasonably expected to have remained stable. An exclusive focus on free-form cyanide is an obvious attempt to skew and misrepresent the facts of original cyanide exposure and what can be measured and interpreted decades later.

This is where both Markiewicz and I disagree. First of all, you can physically see iron cyanide so there's not much of a practical reason to test it if you can't see it. Secondly, absence of Prussian Blue does not prove that homicidal gassings does not take place and in fact you wouldn't expect that. This is where I get confused with your logic.

Why do you think that absence of Prussian Blue is significant? It's like looking for a knife at the crime scene where somebody was shot and saying that nothing happened because there's no knife. There was no reason to look for it.

[Callafangers]

This will take some time to get to the bottom of the report but will you share a direct link to the source of that table, not just a screenshot? I need to do deeper research beyond what is just in that table to really understand the points that you are arguing.

"Systematic research, involving most sensitive analytical methods, undertaken by the Institute confirmed the presence of cyanide compounds in all kinds of gas chamber ruins, even in the basement of Block 11 in Auschwitz, where first, experimental gassing of victims by means of Zyklon B had been carried out. The analysis of control samples, taken from other places (especially from living quarters) yielded unequivocally negative results. For the sake of interpretation several laboratory experiments have been carried out."

We're going to have to look at the sensitivity of the different tests to really be able to compare and contrast results across samples. Markiewicz took that into consideration. Have you guys thought about that yet?

Absolutely, ConfusedJew, here you go, it's on p. 55: https://holocausthandbooks.com/wp-conte ... .13-ia.pdf

I'm always happy to help a confused, innocent, curious Jew who is here doing nothing but seeking factual truth about the fate of Jews in WW2. I really appreciate your sincere honesty.

Just to be clear: you haven't refuted anything I've said yet, but I am patient, and I have full confidence that you'll be ready to make an honest concession if you find that Markiewicz was mistaken. You definitely won't just keep defending the Holocaust narrative because Jews benefit from it. You'll be honest, because that's the stand-up kind of guy you are!

More importantly: Markiewicz did not measure total cyanide, which would have damned his conclusions. Iron-cyanide (FeCN) should have necessarily been included because it is the only form that can be reasonably expected to have remained stable. An exclusive focus on free-form cyanide is an obvious attempt to skew and misrepresent the facts of original cyanide exposure and what can be measured and interpreted decades later.

This is where both Markiewicz and I disagree. First of all, you can physically see iron cyanide so there's not much of a practical reason to test it if you can't see it. Secondly, absence of Prussian Blue does not prove that homicidal gassings does not take place and in fact you wouldn't expect that. This is where I get confused with your logic.

Why do you think that absence of Prussian Blue is significant? It's like looking for a knife at the crime scene where somebody was shot and saying that nothing happened because there's no knife. There was no reason to look for it.

Oh, you and Markiewicz disagree? Just a couple of honest fellows disagreeing with me then, huh? I totally understand, and that's meaningful since, as we know, you're an honest fellow, just curiously seeking the truth.

Iron cyanide? Pssshhtt ya know what, you're right! It's not important at all. Let's just stop talking about it. How's that sound?

[ConfusedJew]

Oh, you and Markiewicz disagree? Just a couple of honest fellows disagreeing with me then, huh? I totally understand, and that's meaningful since, as we know, you're an honest fellow, just curiously seeking the truth.

Iron cyanide? Pssshhtt ya know what, you're right! It's not important at all. Let's just stop talking about it. How's that sound?

Do you concede the point that testing for Prussian Blue was not necessary or even useful? If you do think it was important, we will just debate that, I don't want to leave any stone unturned.

[fireofice]

Secondly, absence of Prussian Blue does not prove that homicidal gassings does not take place and in fact you wouldn't expect that. This is where I get confused with your logic.

Why do you think that absence of Prussian Blue is significant? It's like looking for a knife at the crime scene where somebody was shot and saying that nothing happened because there's no knife. There was no reason to look for it.

If you are talking about absolute certainty, yes these arguments don't provide that. History is about probability, not certainty. It's possible there is some factor that we haven't taken into account that explains how things are what they are. But Rudolf gives many reasons why given the knowledge we do have, Zyklon B being poured in day after day in a damp basement would result in Prussian blue and high amounts of HCN. It's been "proven" that there were no gassings based on the weight of the evidence and probability, but hasn't been "proven" to absolute certainty.

The knife analogy is silly because there is no connection between gunshots and knives. There is with pouring in Zyklon B and HCN in the walls and the walls being covered in blue. A better analogy is if someone was claimed to be killed in a particular room short timeframe, but there is no blood or body or any kind of struggle at all. That would be evidence against the claim. Are you just against forensically analyzing crime scenes in general or something?

[Archie]

This is where both Markiewicz and I disagree. First of all, you can physically see iron cyanide so there's not much of a practical reason to test it if you can't see it. Secondly, absence of Prussian Blue does not prove that homicidal gassings does not take place and in fact you wouldn't expect that. This is where I get confused with your logic.

Why do you think that absence of Prussian Blue is significant? It's like looking for a knife at the crime scene where somebody was shot and saying that nothing happened because there's no knife. There was no reason to look for it.

Just because something is apparent to the naked eye does not mean it is invalid to measure it. Say you have a big fat person and a little skinny person. We can tell just by looking that the big person weighs more. This does not mean that it is invalid to weigh them which is basically what you are arguing above.

In my opinion, you are barking up the wrong tree with this Markiewicz nonsense (even from a Holocaust apologetics standpoint). If I were you, I would concede that there is indeed a massive difference between types of chambers and just move on to giving your excuses for that massive difference.

I would be open to the possibility that there could have been some condition that inhibited the formation of Prussian blue in the "gas chambers." But from my reading of the debate, the conditions would have been favorable, and the rooms, according to the official story, would have been exposed repeatedly to Zyklon. Holocaust promoters have offered numerous explanations for this over the years, all of which are 100% motivated reasoning.

"They only used a little bit of Zyklon"
"It washed off in the rain"
Etc.

[ConfusedJew]

History is about probability, not certainty. It's possible there is some factor that we haven't taken into account that explains how things are what they are. But Rudolf gives many reasons why given the knowledge we do have, Zyklon B being poured in day after day in a damp basement would result in Prussian blue and high amounts of HCN. It's been "proven" that there were no gassings based on the weight of the evidence and probability, but hasn't been "proven" to absolute certainty.

Do you guys think for yourself at all or just rely on Rudolf's analysis? I ask this sincerely. The most recent study addresses many, if not all, of Rudolf's arguments. Have there been any more recent arguments or rebuttals since this 1994 study?

The knife analogy is silly because there is no connection between gunshots and knives. There is with pouring in Zyklon B and HCN in the walls and the walls being covered in blue. A better analogy is if someone was claimed to be killed in a particular room short timeframe, but there is no blood or body or any kind of struggle at all. That would be evidence against the claim. Are you just against forensically analyzing crime scenes in general or something?

Why do you think I am against forensic analysis of crime scenes? The Prussian Blue is a red herring, a misleading clue or distraction that diverts attention from the real issue or important facts. Are you familiar with that term? Please explain to me why you think the Prussian Blue is relevant at all.

The term comes from the practice of using smoked red herrings (a strong-smelling fish) to train hunting dogs by dragging the fish across a trail to distract them.

[ConfusedJew]

In my opinion, you are barking up the wrong tree with this Markiewicz nonsense (even from a Holocaust apologetics standpoint). If I were you, I would concede that there is indeed a massive difference between types of chambers and just move on to giving your excuses for that massive difference.

Why do I need to concede that there was a "massive difference between types of chambers"? The two chambers were different in multiple ways and used for very different purposes. That's not a point of controversy or disagreement.

I would be open to the possibility that there could have been some condition that inhibited the formation of Prussian blue in the "gas chambers." But from my reading of the debate, the conditions would have been favorable, and the rooms, according to the official story, would have been exposed repeatedly to Zyklon. Holocaust promoters have offered numerous explanations for this over the years, all of which are 100% motivated reasoning.

Let me simplify the chemical reaction for you based on our understanding of fundamental chemistry, not motivated reasoning. Again please focus on arguments and not motivations or intentions.

Prussian Blue is a deep blue color that forms when two specific chemicals mix. The first is iron in a charged form (called Fe³⁺ or ferric iron). The second is called ferrocyanide which contains iron and cyanide. When these two mix in water, they react and create a blue solid. This blue stuff doesn’t dissolve in water and forms tiny particles that give the deep blue color.

Zyklon B was a chemical pesticide originally developed for insect and rodent control. It was not pure hydrogen cyanide but liquid hydrogen cyanide absorbed onto a carrier, usually small pellets or granules.

1. In the case of the Holocaust, SS guards would have opened a metal canister of Zyklon B, dumped the contents into the gas chamber, and when the contents were exposed to air, the HCN evaporated quickly, filling the room. When the liquid HCN was exposed to air, especially in a warm room, the HCN would quickly evaporate and turn into a gas.

2. Hydrogen cyanide gas (HCN) is very soluble in water, especially in humid or damp environments. Once dissolved in water, it forms cyanide ions: HCN (gas)+H2O ⇌ H+ + CN−.

3. If iron ions (Fe²⁺) are present — from rust, iron in bricks, plaster, or mortar — the cyanide ions can bind to them to form ferrocyanide ion [Fe (CN) 6] 4−.

4. If Fe³⁺ (ferric iron) is also available (which happens if rusting or oxidation occurs), it can react with ferrocyanide to form Fe3+ + [Fe(CN)6]4− → Prussian Blue. Prussian Blue is an insoluble blue pigment that stains surfaces over time.

This last reaction is very slow and depends on many factors
1. Moisture
2. Temperature
3. Iron content of the surface
4. Time of exposure
5. pH of the material

Is there any disagreement or confusion so far?

[ConfusedJew]

To summarize the chemical process needed to form Prussian Blue:

1. HCN gas released into the chamber
2. HCN dissolves in water (from moisture in the air or walls)
3. Cyanide ions (CN⁻) form
4. CN⁻ reacts with Fe²⁺ to form ferrocyanide
5. Ferrocyanide reacts with Fe³⁺ to form Prussian Blue

The chemical process needed to kill humans:
1. HCN gas released in the chamber

Hydrogen cyanide (HCN) is extremely fast acting and lethal, even in small amounts. It kills humans very quickly, typically within minutes, by interfering with the body's ability to use oxygen at the cellular level. As soon as HCN gas is inhaled, it enters the lungs. From there, it rapidly enters the bloodstream, binds to a vital enzyme in the cells and blocks your cells from using oxygen which leads to internal suffocation.

How the Nazis administered the gas:
1. After Zyklon B was released, the SS would wait 15 to 30 minutes (sometimes longer) to ensure all victims were dead and the gas had mostly acted. During this time, HCN would still be lingering in the air.
2. Some camps (like Auschwitz-Birkenau) had forced-air ventilation systems installed. These systems would pull out the poisonous air through ducts and vents, helping the HCN gas to disperse more quickly.
3. With ventilation systems and fans, it would take 20–30 minutes for the gas to clear enough to allow safe entry with gas masks. The gas was released into the open air above ground, likely at roof level or through chimneys or vertical ducts.

[TlsMS93]

The argument for not producing Prussian Blue was that the amount of gas needed to kill lice was much greater than the amount needed to kill people, meaning people are less resistant than lice, or that the gas barely had time to reach the walls since hundreds or thousands of victims would inhale the gas instantly. They keep perfecting their excuses.

[ConfusedJew]

The argument for not producing Prussian Blue was that the amount of gas needed to kill lice was much greater than the amount needed to kill people, meaning people are less resistant than lice, or that the gas barely had time to reach the walls since hundreds or thousands of victims would inhale the gas instantly. They keep perfecting their excuses.

There were a lot of things that had to happen in order for Prussian Blue to form.

1. First the hydrogen cyanide gas has to exist.
2. Then it needs to dissolve in water to form cyanide ions.
3. Then the ions need to bind to some kind of iron ions to form ferrocyanide ions.
4. Lastly, those ferrocyanide ions need to react with ferric iron which happens with rusting or oxidation.
5. Even if that happens, it still takes a long time for the Prussian Blue stain to form and that process would be prevented if the surfaces were washed. The Sonderkommando and SS officers both testified that the gas chambers of the walls were not just washed but regularly disinfected.

If any one of those links in the chain did not occur, and we have very compelling evidence that the walls were washed at the very least, Prussian Blue would not have formed. If the gas chamber walls were washed after each gassing, it would remove some of the hydrogen cyanide before it had time to react significantly with iron compounds in the walls. This would reduce the likelihood of Prussian Blue formation. The walls in the delousing chambers were not washed regularly, if at all. Also, because HCN is volatile and disperses quickly, any cleaning process done soon after gassing would further limit long-term exposure of HCN to the wall materials.

Do you disagree that the walls of the chamber were washed?

Do you still think that they should have expected Prussian Blue to form despite the washing and disinfectant?

It seems like you guys mostly defer to Rudolf and Leuchter for your answers to these questions but they don't have answers to those things. The biggest complaint that I hear is that Markiewicz never tested for Prussian Blue which is completely irrelevant but maybe that's not obvious to you guys? Honestly it seems like you are trolling but I just assume that you actually believe what you are saying.

[HansHill]

For anyone unfortunate enough to still be reading Confused Jew's Confused Jewibberish; this has all been addressed in the threads outlined by Wetzelrad below. I might intermittently check in on this thread and ensure Wetzelrad's links are always in view for the benefit of any lurkers. Hope the mods dont see that as "spamming"

For the benefit of anyone who is trying to follow along with the conversation...

This post from May is where ConfusedJew first brought up the blue staining argument:
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=8138#p8138

This 11-page thread "A Request to Confused Jew" is where he was asked to explain the absence of Prussian Blue in the Birkenau gas chambers, with reference to Markiewicz:
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=360

This 23-page thread "Forensic Chemistry" was CJ's attempt to confront some of the same arguments, often invoking Markiewicz:
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=450

And here is HansHill's post referenced above:
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=13480#p13480

***Edit***

I see Confused Jew has asked for the resource he was already provided by Archie last week

I will mention for CJ's edification that there's a book that is now available for free in the Holocaust Pocketbooks series, Auschwitz - Forensically Examined. This is like a simplified version of the longer and more technical Chemistry of Auschwitz. I know CJ has said he does not read books, but perhaps he can manage this one given that it's only 104 pages of generously spaced text.

https://holocausthandbooks.com/book/aus ... -examined/

Here he is confirming he "skimmed it" and evidently missed everything

I skimmed through that and it is a pretty good summary of most of the things that we've already discussed already but it's just a summary still.