The Holocaust

submitted by Jesus from self.conspiracy

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Notspendingmylife 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

'But why look only at Prussian Blue? That is only one of many cyanide compounds, and you don't need sophisticated chemical analysis to spot it, it is obvious to the naked eye due to its vivid blue colour.) The Institute for Forensic Research in Cracow tested for other cyanide compounds, and found that the execution chambers do contain cyanide. Leuchter and Rudolf are simply mistaken. Case closed.'

That would be THE SECOND test done by the Cracow institute on this matter. (The first one was done in 1990, with the same analysis method as Leuchter and Rudolf, which showed similar results). The re-test was done by Markiewicz where they purposely did not look for stable, water insoluble cyanide residue and only for water soluble. This means that the test by default would be useless to for showing cynide residue from 50 years ago. They tests only showed short term contaminations from the environement. Rudolf tested for WATER INSOLUBLE RESIDUE only. Rudolf's tests looked for ferrocyanide, ioncyanide, prussian blue-any long lasting cyanides you would find in brick, mortar, lime. According to the Markiewicz report the deeply blue stained delousing chambers had the same cyanide residue as the Krema II walls, with no discoloration whatsoever. Do you seriously want to me to give any faith to this garbage? The Markiewicz test is weasely and pathetic, and the obsession with prussian blue is a nice red herring to detract from the unsettling fact that total cyanide was under the detection limit. Bonus point, the humid cement mortar of Krema II and III are better suited for absorption of HNC than the lime mortar of the delousing chambers

[–]weavilsatemyface 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Oh please, the Leuchter tests were pure garbage. He ground up large chunks of brick and had them tested for cyanide compounds, instead of taking surface scrapings. This would dilute the concentration below the detection limit since no cyanide will find itself deep inside the brick, as he would know. Or maybe he didn't, since he actually was not a chemist or even an engineer, just a deceitful con man who sold execution equipment to American prisons.

Leuchter has no credibility: he lied about his qualifications, and he lied about his tests being "the first" forensic examination of Auschwitz.

The earliest forensic tests at Auschwitz occurred in 1945, and found visible layers of white substance on ventilation shafts, which where tested and found to contain cyanide. They also found traces of prussic acid in hair samples, pins, clasps, and spectacle holders. This alone is sufficient proof that cyanide was used at Auschwitz. Any further tests half a century later are redundant. If they come back positive they only confirm what we already know, that cyanide was used. If they come back negative, all that means is that the test failed to find cyanide for some reason.

In 1990, Markiewicz and his team did a preliminary study of 10 samples and 2 control samples from Auschwitz. They were able to confirm the presence of cyanide in Krema II while both control samples were negative, which suggests that the results are accurate. You claim that these tests found the same results as Leuchter and Rudolf, but that is untrue: the 1990 tests found cyanide. You are also wrong to say that the tests were unsuitable for testing for insoluble cyanide compounds. They used a spectrophotometer to detect an CN ions, so the form of the cyanide is irrelevant.

Most disturbingly, you completely invert the solubility argument. It is Leuchter and Rudolf who used a biased test with poor controls that would fail to detect soluble CN compounds, and who took their samples from without any concern for whether they had been sheltered from the elements.

Markiewicz's second test was more extensive and against confirmed the presence of cyanide in places it was expected to be found, and no cyanide in the control samples.

They tests only showed short term contaminations from the environement.

We all know that well into the 1990s everyone has easy access to cyanide leading to widespread contamination from the environment. Cyanide is everywhere! It's a wonder that people aren't constantly dying from it. Right?

How come the accommodation dwellings weren't exposed to this "short term contamination from the environment"?

According to the Markiewicz report the deeply blue stained delousing chambers had the same cyanide residue as the Krema II walls, with no discoloration whatsoever.

Rudolf himself stated that the formation of Prussian Blue (the discoloration) is very unusual. It is hardly a surprise that most places that had contact with cyanide had no discoloration. It would be surprising if they were discoloured. There is one documented case of a church basement being used for gassing which also formed Prussian Blue, and that's quite surprising. But in general, there is no reason to expect discolouration after the use of Zyklon B.

the unsettling fact that total cyanide was under the detection limit.

How could the amount of cyanide detected be under the detection limit? That makes no sense.

In any case, it is not true. Levels of cyanide detected were well within the detection limit:

  • In the fumigation chambers, the measurements ranged up to 900 μg/kg.
  • In the Kremas they ranged up to 640 μg/kg.
  • And in the controls (accommodation dwellings) were 0-1 μg/kg, which is close enough to zero.

Bonus point, the humid cement mortar of Krema II and III are better suited for absorption of HNC than the lime mortar of the delousing chambers

That is a red herring. The Krema were frequently washed down, which would also remove cyanide. And the delousing chambers were exposed to cyanide for many hours at a time, not 20 minutes. Even if the lime mortar was less suited to absorb HCN, it was exposed for a much longer time, and not washed down afterwards, so it is hardly a surprise that there are larger traces remaining.