Rudolf dishonesty?

Holocaust denial and related subjects.
User avatar
iwh
Poster
Posts: 254
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2014 2:32 pm

Rudolf dishonesty?

Postby iwh » Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:32 pm

Whilst looking into Rudolf's work this last few days I came across this reference to the Krakow Institute:

In a private exchange of correspondence with Werner Wegner,
Prof. Markiewicz displayed his ignorance once again:508

[...]

IX. The blue stains on the exterior walls of Building 5a are not easily
explained. Above all, we must examine whether or not it is actual Berlin
Blue [=Iron Blue…]”


Rudolf goes on...

In a later study, these authors published additional analysis results
of samples taken later, using the same analytic method. According to
these analyses, the cyanide concentration of samples taken IN A disinfestation
chamber and IN alleged homicidal ‘gas chambers’ were in the
range of 0.0 to 0.8 and 0.0 to 0.6 mg/kg, respectively. This study also
discussed the selection of the analytical method.57 This was said to
have been selected because the authors could not imagine how blue
iron cyanide compounds could form in the masonry:
“It is hard to imagine the chemical reactions and physicochemical
processes that could have led to the formation of Prussian blue in that
place
.”

In what place?

[url]http://www.solargeneral.org/wp-content/uploads/library/rudolf-report-germar-rudolf.pdf
[/url]

p 252

Rudolf implies that Prof. Markiewicz is talking about the internal walls of the dis-infestation chamber and the gas chambers. On looking at the Second Krakow report, here is what is actually written:

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/polish/institute-for-forensic-research/methodology-one.html

This dye occurs, especially in the form of stains, on the outer bricks of the walls of the former bathdelousing house in the area of the Birkenau camp. It is hard to imagine the chemical reactions and physicochemical processes that could have led to the formation of Prussian blue in that place.


Surely what is being written about here is the formation of PB on the outside bricks, which as far as I am aware, has always been a puzzle regarding its origins.

Rudolf seems to have split up the quote and inferred that Prof. Markiewicz doesn't know how PB has formed on the interior walls.

Any thoughts?
For a debunking of new boy on the block John Wear see:

https://wearswarts.wordpress.com

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6441
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Rudolf dishonesty?

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:42 pm

I look forward to what D-H will say....
LOL

I know the rudiments of this and I know how Richard Green rebutted it but I am by no means anything close to or resembling someone who can work out the chemistry.

User avatar
iwh
Poster
Posts: 254
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2014 2:32 pm

Re: Rudolf dishonesty?

Postby iwh » Thu Dec 07, 2017 3:48 pm

There's more...in his "rebuttal" of Richard Green's first article on the Rudolf Report found here:

http://www.vho.org/GB/c/GR/Green.html

Rudolf takes it even further:

"These Poles have conducted their analyses with a method which is not able to detect Iron cyanide compounds. They did this because they allegedly didn't understand how such compounds could possibly form. Has anyone ever heard that the non-understanding of a phenomenon is a reason for not examining it?"


He now implies the Poles have absolutely no understanding of the formation of PB!!

At all!!
For a debunking of new boy on the block John Wear see:

https://wearswarts.wordpress.com

User avatar
Denying-History
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1729
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:01 pm

Re: Rudolf dishonesty?

Postby Denying-History » Thu Dec 07, 2017 5:59 pm

Not sure how anyone is supposed to know why PB has come to be seen. It formed many years after the war and was not seen in 1944. The best explanation I have seen for why it didn't show in the gas chambers is rainfall. I believe I mentioned this on twitter. These rooms would flood with some three feet of water. Krema 4 cannot be tested for cyanide, it no longer exists, and krema 5 too my understanding wasn't used to kill as many as Krema 2 and 3, so why should we expect concentrations of PB if they didn't build in the rooms which had more gassings in them? Not to mention with the failure of Krema 4's ovens too my understanding Krema 5's gas chamber was plastered.
Last edited by Denying-History on Sat Dec 09, 2017 4:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
« Lies written in ink cannot disguise facts written in blood. »
- Lu Xun

Balmoral95
Regular Poster
Posts: 955
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 4:14 am
Location: The Free Nambia Healthcare Nirvana

Re: Rudolf dishonesty?

Postby Balmoral95 » Fri Dec 08, 2017 1:12 am

As to his dishonesty, are we confining this to the Reporr, or is his dishonest use of nyms and patently fraudulent academic degrees fair game as well?

User avatar
Denying-History
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1729
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:01 pm

Re: Rudolf dishonesty?

Postby Denying-History » Fri Dec 08, 2017 1:29 am

Hmm since you bring it up....

In spring and summer 1992 I was called by several defence lawyers as an expert witness in several trials imposed on Revisionists in Germany (see footnote 103 of the brochure mentioned). In these trials -- as in all trials against Revisionists -- the judges refused to accept any evidence presented by the defence, including all expert witnesses. I had to learn that a chemist (me) was being refused because he was neither a toxicologist nor a historian, an engineer (Leuchter) being refused because he was neither a chemist nor a historian, a historian (Prof. Haverbeck) being refused because he was neither a chemist nor an engineer. My conclusions were that one obviously had to be at the same time an engineer, a chemist, a toxicologist, a historian and a perhaps even an barrister to be accepted as an expert witness at a German court. The legal process being so perverted in Germany, we decided to mock it by inventing a person with all these features, but then we realized that this would be a bit unrealistic, so we split that person into many. That is the background.


http://vho.org/GB/c/GR/CharacterAssassins.html
« Lies written in ink cannot disguise facts written in blood. »
- Lu Xun

Balmoral95
Regular Poster
Posts: 955
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 4:14 am
Location: The Free Nambia Healthcare Nirvana

Re: Rudolf dishonesty?

Postby Balmoral95 » Fri Dec 08, 2017 3:13 am

Denying-History wrote:Hmm since you bring it up....

In spring and summer 1992 I was called by several defence lawyers as an expert witness in several trials imposed on Revisionists in Germany (see footnote 103 of the brochure mentioned). In these trials -- as in all trials against Revisionists -- the judges refused to accept any evidence presented by the defence, including all expert witnesses. I had to learn that a chemist (me) was being refused because he was neither a toxicologist nor a historian, an engineer (Leuchter) being refused because he was neither a chemist nor a historian, a historian (Prof. Haverbeck) being refused because he was neither a chemist nor an engineer. My conclusions were that one obviously had to be at the same time an engineer, a chemist, a toxicologist, a historian and a perhaps even an barrister to be accepted as an expert witness at a German court. The legal process being so perverted in Germany, we decided to mock it by inventing a person with all these features, but then we realized that this would be a bit unrealistic, so we split that person into many. That is the background.


http://vho.org/GB/c/GR/CharacterAssassins.html


He's nuts. The only thing perverted is his brain. Although I will say German legal process missed that he should have been remanded for mental health rather than criminal issues.

User avatar
iwh
Poster
Posts: 254
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2014 2:32 pm

Re: Rudolf dishonesty?

Postby iwh » Fri Dec 08, 2017 9:36 am

Denying-History wrote:Hmm since you bring it up....

In spring and summer 1992 I was called by several defence lawyers as an expert witness in several trials imposed on Revisionists in Germany (see footnote 103 of the brochure mentioned). In these trials -- as in all trials against Revisionists -- the judges refused to accept any evidence presented by the defence, including all expert witnesses. I had to learn that a chemist (me) was being refused because he was neither a toxicologist nor a historian, an engineer (Leuchter) being refused because he was neither a chemist nor a historian, a historian (Prof. Haverbeck) being refused because he was neither a chemist nor an engineer. My conclusions were that one obviously had to be at the same time an engineer, a chemist, a toxicologist, a historian and a perhaps even an barrister to be accepted as an expert witness at a German court. The legal process being so perverted in Germany, we decided to mock it by inventing a person with all these features, but then we realized that this would be a bit unrealistic, so we split that person into many. That is the background.


http://vho.org/GB/c/GR/CharacterAssassins.html


What is Rudolf claiming here? That he used his own name in the courts but faked his qualifications? Or did he enter court under an assumed name and assumed qualifications?

Moreover, was the Rudolf Report ever used in German Courts as evidence?

Hmmmm.......
For a debunking of new boy on the block John Wear see:

https://wearswarts.wordpress.com

User avatar
iwh
Poster
Posts: 254
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2014 2:32 pm

Re: Rudolf dishonesty?

Postby iwh » Fri Dec 08, 2017 9:40 am

Ah...according to Wiki...the Report was used in German trials.
For a debunking of new boy on the block John Wear see:

https://wearswarts.wordpress.com

User avatar
iwh
Poster
Posts: 254
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2014 2:32 pm

Re: Rudolf dishonesty?

Postby iwh » Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:44 am

It appears his arrogance regarding the implied lack of intelligence of the German Courts came a cropper when he tried the same trick at the Irving appeal trial.
For a debunking of new boy on the block John Wear see:

https://wearswarts.wordpress.com

User avatar
iwh
Poster
Posts: 254
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2014 2:32 pm

Re: Rudolf dishonesty?

Postby iwh » Fri Dec 08, 2017 3:18 pm

It's amazing what you find when you least expect it...Here is a doozy.

"Theoretically, one could, at that time, have chosen between nitrogen (N2), carbon dioxide (CO2), carbon monoxide (CO), phosgene (COCl2), chlorine (Cl2), hydrogen cyanide (HCN), nerve gases such as Tabun and Sarin, Diesel engine exhaust, internal combustion engine exhaust, producer gas, coke or city gas, process gas,"


Anyone spot the odd one out?

Mr Berg will not be happy!!
For a debunking of new boy on the block John Wear see:

https://wearswarts.wordpress.com

User avatar
iwh
Poster
Posts: 254
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2014 2:32 pm

Re: Rudolf dishonesty?

Postby iwh » Fri Dec 08, 2017 3:19 pm

...and this bit..

But if one really wished to take the trouble to commit mass killings with poison gas, it is most probable that one would have used carbon monoxide


you don't say.....

:roll: :roll:
For a debunking of new boy on the block John Wear see:

https://wearswarts.wordpress.com

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6441
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Rudolf dishonesty?

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Fri Dec 08, 2017 3:22 pm

iwh wrote:It's amazing what you find when you least expect it...Here is a doozy.

"Theoretically, one could, at that time, have chosen between nitrogen (N2), carbon dioxide (CO2), carbon monoxide (CO), phosgene (COCl2), chlorine (Cl2), hydrogen cyanide (HCN), nerve gases such as Tabun and Sarin, Diesel engine exhaust, internal combustion engine exhaust, producer gas, coke or city gas, process gas,"


Anyone spot the odd one out?

Mr Berg will not be happy!!



Someone needs to point it out to him.... :lol:

Producer gas is the method that Berg wants to use to murder every living Jew. I mean, er, the method he thinks the Nazis would have used to commit mass murder.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17439
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Rudolf dishonesty?

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Fri Dec 08, 2017 3:41 pm

. . . not that he's thought about doing such a thing . . .
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
iwh
Poster
Posts: 254
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2014 2:32 pm

Re: Rudolf dishonesty?

Postby iwh » Fri Dec 08, 2017 3:45 pm

Of course...using Sarin or Tabun would not be complicated at all...far less harmful to the Germans using it....

:lol: :lol:
Last edited by iwh on Fri Dec 08, 2017 8:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
For a debunking of new boy on the block John Wear see:

https://wearswarts.wordpress.com

User avatar
Denying-History
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1729
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:01 pm

Re: Rudolf dishonesty?

Postby Denying-History » Fri Dec 08, 2017 4:23 pm

iwh wrote:
Denying-History wrote:Hmm since you bring it up....

In spring and summer 1992 I was called by several defence lawyers as an expert witness in several trials imposed on Revisionists in Germany (see footnote 103 of the brochure mentioned). In these trials -- as in all trials against Revisionists -- the judges refused to accept any evidence presented by the defence, including all expert witnesses. I had to learn that a chemist (me) was being refused because he was neither a toxicologist nor a historian, an engineer (Leuchter) being refused because he was neither a chemist nor a historian, a historian (Prof. Haverbeck) being refused because he was neither a chemist nor an engineer. My conclusions were that one obviously had to be at the same time an engineer, a chemist, a toxicologist, a historian and a perhaps even an barrister to be accepted as an expert witness at a German court. The legal process being so perverted in Germany, we decided to mock it by inventing a person with all these features, but then we realized that this would be a bit unrealistic, so we split that person into many. That is the background.


http://vho.org/GB/c/GR/CharacterAssassins.html


What is Rudolf claiming here? That he used his own name in the courts but faked his qualifications? Or did he enter court under an assumed name and assumed qualifications?

Moreover, was the Rudolf Report ever used in German Courts as evidence?

Hmmmm.......


Van Pelt wrote:Thus Rudolf admits to fabricating the existence of various personae with false credentials. This, so I presume, was the origin of the fact that Rudolf has written under his original name Germar Rudolf, under the assumed names of a number of men claiming a doctorate...Rudolf never obtained his Ph.D. Rudolf has violated the principles of authorship when he actually published under the name of a well-known living writer, Anton Maegerle. He mocks the principles of scholarship when, in the past, he has used these different identities to give his various personae academic authority: Dr. Gauss quotes Mr. Rudolf, Mr. Rudolf co-authors an article with Dr. Gauss, and so on. When challenged about this practice, Rudolf stated that "in all cases when I refer to my own works written under a pen name, I never do it to say: 'look, this expert has the same opinion as I have', but rather to say 'this fact or argument was proven and published there.'" The problem, however, is that he does not tell his rather unconventional view of citation to the readers, who have learned to understand references to the work of others as part of a large conversation amongst peers, and not as a schizoid monologue of one. Rudolf turns the conventions of academia into a burlesque farce - conventions that represent a readiness to adhere to some generally shared standards of truth and accountability.


http://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/irving-david/vanpelt/vanpelt-preface.shtml#Preface
« Lies written in ink cannot disguise facts written in blood. »
- Lu Xun

User avatar
Aaron Richards
Poster
Posts: 188
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 9:03 am

Re: Rudolf dishonesty?

Postby Aaron Richards » Sat Dec 09, 2017 3:42 pm

Denying-History wrote:It formed many years after the war and was not seen in 1944. The best explanation I have seen for why it didn't show in the gas chambers is rainfall. These rooms [cellars of Krema II, III] would flood with some three feet of water.


I'd like some more info (sources) on this, please.
"...we had the duty towards our Volk (the German people) to kill this Volk (the Jewish people) that wanted to kill us." - Himmler in his 1943 Posen speech reminding any future holocaust denier how absurd their beliefs really are.
I compile rebuttals to popular holocaust denier canards here: http://imgur.com/a/725A7

Sergey_Romanov
Poster
Posts: 273
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:15 am

Re: Rudolf dishonesty?

Postby Sergey_Romanov » Sat Dec 09, 2017 4:32 pm

Denying-History wrote:Not sure how anyone is supposed to know why PB has come to be seen. It formed many years after the way and was not seen in 1944. The best explanation I have seen for why it didn't show in the gas chambers is rainfall. I believe I mentioned this on twitter. These rooms would flood with some three feet of water. Krema 4 cannot be tested for cyanide, it no longer exists, and krema 5 too my understanding wasn't used to kill as many as Krema 2 and 3, so why should we expect concentrations of PB if they didn't build in the rooms which had more gassings in them? Not to mention with the failure of Krema 4's ovens too my understanding Krema 5's gas chamber was plastered.

We don't have the Bunkers or K4&5, KI was small-scale, so the only absence to be explained is in K2&3 and it has been done.

Rainfall is utterly irrelevant to PB.

User avatar
Denying-History
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1729
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:01 pm

Re: Rudolf dishonesty?

Postby Denying-History » Sat Dec 09, 2017 4:48 pm

Sergey_Romanov wrote:
Denying-History wrote:Not sure how anyone is supposed to know why PB has come to be seen. It formed many years after the way and was not seen in 1944. The best explanation I have seen for why it didn't show in the gas chambers is rainfall. I believe I mentioned this on twitter. These rooms would flood with some three feet of water. Krema 4 cannot be tested for cyanide, it no longer exists, and krema 5 too my understanding wasn't used to kill as many as Krema 2 and 3, so why should we expect concentrations of PB if they didn't build in the rooms which had more gassings in them? Not to mention with the failure of Krema 4's ovens too my understanding Krema 5's gas chamber was plastered.

We don't have the Bunkers or K4&5, KI was small-scale, so the only absence to be explained is in K2&3 and it has been done.

Rainfall is utterly irrelevant to PB.

Don't believe I mentioned anything about the bunkers, though I believe we still do have the ruins of bunker 2. As for what you have stated about Krema 5, that seems utterly wrong considering Leuchter found cyanide samples in the reconstructed section of Krema 4 and in the ruins of Krema 5.

Rainwater is heavily acidic, and breaches pH levels of 6. If the gas chamber is flooded each year it is most likely going to prevent the formation of PB if it would even come into existence at all in krema 2 and 3.
« Lies written in ink cannot disguise facts written in blood. »
- Lu Xun

User avatar
Denying-History
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1729
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:01 pm

Re: Rudolf dishonesty?

Postby Denying-History » Sat Dec 09, 2017 5:06 pm

Aaron Richards wrote:
Denying-History wrote:It formed many years after the war and was not seen in 1944. The best explanation I have seen for why it didn't show in the gas chambers is rainfall. These rooms [cellars of Krema II, III] would flood with some three feet of water.


I'd like some more info (sources) on this, please.

Formation of PB after the war:
Technique and operation p.53
Image

http://www.phdn.org/negation/pressac-leuchter.html
Image

Rainfall and its effects on cyanide concentrations see "Polish Institute for Forensic Research".

And Prussian blue solubility:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/40209960_Dissolution_behaviour_of_iron_cyanide_Prussian_Blue_in_contaminated_soils

and or

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/auschwitz/cyanide/cyanide.002
« Lies written in ink cannot disguise facts written in blood. »
- Lu Xun

Sergey_Romanov
Poster
Posts: 273
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:15 am

Re: Rudolf dishonesty?

Postby Sergey_Romanov » Sat Dec 09, 2017 5:08 pm

Denying-History wrote:
Sergey_Romanov wrote:
Denying-History wrote:Not sure how anyone is supposed to know why PB has come to be seen. It formed many years after the way and was not seen in 1944. The best explanation I have seen for why it didn't show in the gas chambers is rainfall. I believe I mentioned this on twitter. These rooms would flood with some three feet of water. Krema 4 cannot be tested for cyanide, it no longer exists, and krema 5 too my understanding wasn't used to kill as many as Krema 2 and 3, so why should we expect concentrations of PB if they didn't build in the rooms which had more gassings in them? Not to mention with the failure of Krema 4's ovens too my understanding Krema 5's gas chamber was plastered.

We don't have the Bunkers or K4&5, KI was small-scale, so the only absence to be explained is in K2&3 and it has been done.

Rainfall is utterly irrelevant to PB.

Don't believe I mentioned anything about the bunkers, though I believe we still do have the ruins of bunker 2. As for what you have stated about Krema 5, that seems utterly wrong considering Leuchter found cyanide samples in the reconstructed section of Krema 4 and in the ruins of Krema 5.

Rainwater is heavily acidic, and breaches pH levels of 6. If the gas chamber is flooded each year it is most likely going to prevent the formation of PB if it would even come into existence at all in krema 2 and 3.

Except if the conditions for PB were already there it would have formed during the GC use.
That the cyanides were found in those bricks doesn't mean they were directly from the GCs rather, say, from the parts that were exposed to HCN in some measure since the whole building was exposed to HCN-soaked corpses to one degree or another.

If the solution were that simple don't you think it wouldn't have been mentioned by Green?

Sergey_Romanov
Poster
Posts: 273
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:15 am

Re: Rudolf dishonesty?

Postby Sergey_Romanov » Sat Dec 09, 2017 5:09 pm

Oh, and rain of course did nothing to the delousing chambers' PB.

User avatar
Denying-History
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1729
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:01 pm

Re: Rudolf dishonesty?

Postby Denying-History » Sat Dec 09, 2017 5:22 pm

Sergey_Romanov wrote:Except if the conditions for PB were already there it would have formed during the GC use.
PB is not a mandatory reaction as I am sure we are both aware, but mind the point that is being made is that if PB was to form in the gas chambers at all, in any little concentration that could come into existence it would have been washed away for Krema 2 and 3 after years of contact with rain water.

Sergey_Romanov wrote:That the cyanides were found in those bricks doesn't mean they were directly from the GCs rather, say, from the parts that were exposed to HCN in some measure since the whole building was exposed to HCN-soaked corpses to one degree or another.

If the solution were that simple don't you think it wouldn't have been mentioned by Green?

Oh, and rain of course did nothing to the delousing chambers' PB.

The concept of dragged corpses leaving cyanide traces is very theoretical too me. Mind though Greens argument is that a variety of factors are the reason as too why the gas chambers didn't form PB. Which is even why he mentioned Rainfall in his "Iron Blues" essay.

Prussian blue formation is exceedingly sensitive to concentration and also to pH. Very small effects could tip the balance between whether Prussian blue forms or not. Alich et al. found a strong pH dependence to the reaction. The presence of human beings in the gas chambers could also help tip the balance. CO2 is an acid anhydride and there would have been a lot of it in the homicidal chambers. An acid anhydride is a substance that increases the acidity of a solution when it becomes solvated. Even atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (at 360 ppm today, about 330 ppm then) are sufficient to cause pure rain water to have a pH of 5.6

http://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/blue/

The point mainly being is that rainfall in parts of norther Europe slowly declined from pH levels of 5.8 to 5 from 1955 to 1975.

There is also a considerable difference between the Disinfection chambers and Krema 2 and 3 considering two of these buildings FLOOD with up to 3 feet of water.
« Lies written in ink cannot disguise facts written in blood. »
- Lu Xun

Sergey_Romanov
Poster
Posts: 273
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:15 am

Re: Rudolf dishonesty?

Postby Sergey_Romanov » Sat Dec 09, 2017 5:44 pm

Denying-History wrote:
Sergey_Romanov wrote:Except if the conditions for PB were already there it would have formed during the GC use.
PB is not a mandatory reaction as I am sure we are both aware, but mind the point that is being made is that if PB was to form in the gas chambers at all, in any little concentration that could come into existence it would have been washed away for Krema 2 and 3 after years of contact with rain water.


The crux of the case are not K2&3 in which it is doubtful that the conditions for PB were ever there in the first place, so rainfall is not necessary at all for its absence, much less the only explanation.

The crux of the case are the Bunkers and the K4&5 which had the conditions much more similar to those of the delousing chambers due to poor-to-non-existent ventilation and where presumably the PB would have readily formed after a few months just like it did in that Bavarian church after just 1 ZB gassing and where its absence (which I don't assume since we have no idea what part of the building the current bricks come from) cannot be explained by rainfall since they were exposed to the same rainfall conditions as the delousing chambers, where the PB on the outside walls (in some places) survived the rainfall just fine.



The concept of dragged corpses leaving cyanide traces is very theoretical too me.


I don't see what is supposed to be theoretical about it. Moreover, if the morgue AKA the undressing room was used to store the gassed corpses before incineration - so that gassings could take in the gas chambers in the meanwhile - those thousands of bodies would certainly have had an influence on the HCN content in the walls.


There is also a considerable difference between the Disinfection chambers and Krema 2 and 3 considering two of these buildings FLOOD with up to 3 feet of water.

And it is still not necessary to explain the absence of PB there.

User avatar
Denying-History
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1729
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:01 pm

Re: Rudolf dishonesty?

Postby Denying-History » Sat Dec 09, 2017 6:02 pm

Sergey_Romanov wrote:
Denying-History wrote:
Sergey_Romanov wrote:Except if the conditions for PB were already there it would have formed during the GC use.
PB is not a mandatory reaction as I am sure we are both aware, but mind the point that is being made is that if PB was to form in the gas chambers at all, in any little concentration that could come into existence it would have been washed away for Krema 2 and 3 after years of contact with rain water.


The crux of the case are not K2&3 in which it is doubtful that the conditions for PB were ever there in the first place, so rainfall is not necessary at all for its absence, much less the only explanation.

The crux of the case are the Bunkers and the K4&5 which had the conditions much more similar to those of the delousing chambers due to poor-to-non-existent ventilation and where presumably the PB would have readily formed after a few months just like it did in that Bavarian church after just 1 ZB gassing and where its absence (which I don't assume since we have no idea what part of the building the current bricks come from) cannot be explained by rainfall since they were exposed to the same rainfall conditions as the delousing chambers, where the PB on the outside walls (in some places) survived the rainfall just fine.


The Bunkers and 4 were practically completely dismantled, and we have no way to test them. The interesting thing about Krema 5 though is despite being a large pile of bricks and Krema 4 being reconstructed from bricks from Krema 5 is that samples showed up from the walls that showed cyanide. Although, I am not sure I would say Krema 5 had similar conditions. Pressac states Krema 5 had a ventilation system installed in May 1944.

Sergey_Romanov wrote:
The concept of dragged corpses leaving cyanide traces is very theoretical too me.


I don't see what is supposed to be theoretical about it. Moreover, if the morgue AKA the undressing room was used to store the gassed corpses before incineration - so that gassings could take in the gas chambers in the meanwhile - those thousands of bodies would certainly have had an influence on the HCN content in the walls.

It seems theoretical because from memory of watching the video footage of Leuchter his samples from Krema 5 were all bricks, and the floor was cement.

Sergey_Romanov wrote:
There is also a considerable difference between the Disinfection chambers and Krema 2 and 3 considering two of these buildings FLOOD with up to 3 feet of water.

And it is still not necessary to explain the absence of PB there.

Its definitely not necessary, considering that the only thing that seems too be needed is explaining the difference in time of use and concentrations. It however is what both Pressac, Nizkor, and the Poles used to explain the lower cyanide concentrations in the gas chambers, it is one important factor as too why we do not see Prussian Blue in the rooms.
« Lies written in ink cannot disguise facts written in blood. »
- Lu Xun

Sergey_Romanov
Poster
Posts: 273
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:15 am

Re: Rudolf dishonesty?

Postby Sergey_Romanov » Sat Dec 09, 2017 6:24 pm

Denying-History wrote:The interesting thing about Krema 5 though is despite being a large pile of bricks and Krema 4 being reconstructed from bricks from Krema 5 is that samples showed up from the walls that showed cyanide. Although, I am not sure I would say Krema 5 had similar conditions. Pressac states Krema 5 had a ventilation system installed in May 1944.


I don't know if anything was installed or whether that was Pressac's happy assumption (something he is known for), but assuming it was, there were still months of use without mechanical ventilation.

Sergey_Romanov wrote:It seems theoretical because from memory of watching the video footage of Leuchter his samples from Krema 5 were all bricks, and the floor was cement.


The HCN evaporating from the surfaces of *thousands* of corpses dragged one by one would have most probably also affected the walls in the corridor and the morgue and the furnace room. More so if the the morgue was used to temporarily store corpses to enable further gassings.

Sergey_Romanov wrote:Its definitely not necessary
Neither it is the best explanation in my judgment.

It however is what both Pressac, Nizkor, and the Poles used to explain the lower cyanide concentrations in the gas chambers

Certainly, of the non-PB traces. There it's relevant since they're not as stable as formed PB and will weather away with time.

User avatar
Denying-History
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1729
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:01 pm

Re: Rudolf dishonesty?

Postby Denying-History » Sat Dec 09, 2017 6:40 pm

Sergey_Romanov wrote:
Denying-History wrote:The interesting thing about Krema 5 though is despite being a large pile of bricks and Krema 4 being reconstructed from bricks from Krema 5 is that samples showed up from the walls that showed cyanide. Although, I am not sure I would say Krema 5 had similar conditions. Pressac states Krema 5 had a ventilation system installed in May 1944.


I don't know if anything was installed or whether that was Pressac's happy assumption (something he is known for), but assuming it was, there were still months of use without mechanical ventilation.


Maybe I am not sure, I remember in anatomy he cites a telegram that discusses the installation from June, and I remember from Die Krematorium Von Auschwitz he states the system had been in Auschwitz since January of that same year. Though I am not sure if he cites a document for installation. Though If I remember correctly didn't Krema V get taken out of service in September 1943 to be reinstated with the Hungarian transport?

Sergey_Romanov wrote:
Denying-History wrote:It seems theoretical because from memory of watching the video footage of Leuchter his samples from Krema 5 were all bricks, and the floor was cement.


The HCN evaporating from the surfaces of *thousands* of corpses dragged one by one would have most probably also affected the walls in the corridor and the morgue and the furnace room. More so if the the morgue was used to temporarily store corpses to enable further gassings.


Perhaps.

Sergey_Romanov wrote:
Denying-History wrote:Its definitely not necessary
Neither it is the best explanation in my judgment.
This all falls under personal choice.

Sergey_Romanov wrote:
It however is what both Pressac, Nizkor, and the Poles used to explain the lower cyanide concentrations in the gas chambers

Certainly, of the non-PB traces. There it's relevant since they're not as stable as formed PB and will weather away with time.
I am pretty sure Nizkor endorsed the point about PB being weathered away... All though mind Pressacs explanation was the use of a heater and gassing time, but he gives clarification that we do not know when the Prussian Blue formed on the walls, which is the reasoning behind the point of weathering. As for the Poles their explanation is high levels of Carbon Dioxide and Weathering, which can be connected with Prussian blue, which they leave open with a passing remark that PB did not form in all gas chambers, and that one scholar believed PB was paint and that it did not form on brick.
« Lies written in ink cannot disguise facts written in blood. »
- Lu Xun

Sergey_Romanov
Poster
Posts: 273
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:15 am

Re: Rudolf dishonesty?

Postby Sergey_Romanov » Sat Dec 09, 2017 7:19 pm

> I am pretty sure Nizkor endorsed the point about PB being weathered away.

OK, first of all what Nizkor endorsed or not is in itself not very important, only why. Green agrees with Rudolf that PB would not have weathered away.
Second, if PB weathered away it would have also done this on the delousing chamber walls.

User avatar
Denying-History
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1729
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:01 pm

Re: Rudolf dishonesty?

Postby Denying-History » Sat Dec 09, 2017 7:28 pm

You do know by "weathered away" I mean its possibility of formation was prevented right?
« Lies written in ink cannot disguise facts written in blood. »
- Lu Xun

User avatar
Denying-History
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1729
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:01 pm

Re: Rudolf dishonesty?

Postby Denying-History » Sat Dec 09, 2017 7:38 pm

I am also confused as to where you got the idea that Green fully agreed with Rudolf, he stated in "The Chemistry of Auschwitz" that "Prussian blue formation is extremely sensitive to concentrations, pH, presence of water, and the presence of Fe (III) that is already complexed with cyanide." If the rain water flooded the room it would have prevented the creation of any form of PB similar to the hosing of the rooms would help remove HCN from the walls.
« Lies written in ink cannot disguise facts written in blood. »
- Lu Xun

Sergey_Romanov
Poster
Posts: 273
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:15 am

Re: Rudolf dishonesty?

Postby Sergey_Romanov » Sat Dec 09, 2017 8:01 pm

Denying-History wrote:You do know by "weathered away" I mean its possibility of formation was prevented right?


No, because that's not what it means. If it never formed it can't weather away.

http://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-hist ... affweb.pdf

"Rudolf spends a few pages demonstrating that iron blues are not very susceptible to weathering.
I do not substantially disagree with Rudolf's conclusions regarding the weathering of Prussian blue. It is
in part because Prussian blue in contrast to compounds of simple cyanide ions is resistant to weather that
the results of Leuchter and Rudolf are not meaningful.

...

In practice, I do not disagree with Rudolf's conclusion that iron blues, once formed, should survive
weathering. This fact goes a long way in explaining what is wrong with the conclusions of Leuchter and
Rudolf and what is correct about the work of Markiewicz et al."

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1579
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: Rudolf dishonesty?

Postby Balsamo » Sat Dec 09, 2017 8:30 pm

The OP title is actually a Pleonasm... ;)

User avatar
Denying-History
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1729
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:01 pm

Re: Rudolf dishonesty?

Postby Denying-History » Sat Dec 09, 2017 8:36 pm

Not really the impression I had of the term. The point was that Prussian Blue being cyanide related as Rudolf argues wouldn't not have formed under the pretext of it weathering away, a term I took from the nizkor article I linked too earlier. But alright.
« Lies written in ink cannot disguise facts written in blood. »
- Lu Xun


Return to “Holocaust Denial”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Denying-History and 2 guests