From THE CHEMISTRY OF AUSCHWITZ video, look at what Rudolf said about Markiewicz and the rest of those Polish frauds.
The situation is different when it comes to samples taken from former fumigation chambers. Only three of the four individuals who took samples agree on the range of cyanide contents. All samples that these three samplers had taken had readings of at least a gram of cyanide per kilogram of sample material. This means that at least 0.1% of the samples consisted of cyanide, something we would expect of a sample taken from walls exhibiting a patchy blue discoloration caused by Zyklon-B fumigations. The third set of samples taken from various Auschwitz fumigation chambers and analyzed by Markiewicz and colleagues, however, didn’t result in any significant cyanide readings at all.
The reason for that is simple: Dr. Jan Markiewicz, here a portrait from the 1960s, had been commissioned by the Polish State Museum at Auschwitz, thus by the Polish government itself. Markiewicz himself was an employee of the Jan-Sehn-Institute for Forensic Research, which is run by the Polish government’s department of justice. Since denying the Auschwitz gas chambers is a crime in Poland, Markiewicz must have been under massive pressure to somehow conclude that the cyanide readings from the claimed homicidal gas chambers resemble those of fumigation chambers. To produce those results, he chose an analytic method which by design was unable to detect any Prussian Blue and similar long-term-stable iron cyanide compounds. Here is his 1994 publication of his rigged results. As a reason why he excluded all Prussian Blue from the analysis, he stated that he did not understand how Prussian Blue could possibly form in masonry as a result of Zyklon B gassings. Quote:
“It is hard to imagine the chemical reactions and physicochemical processes that could have led to the formation of Prussian Blue in that place.” – (p. 20)
Referring to a paper by an Austrian chemist, Markiewicz then stated, quote “that the formation of Prussian blue in bricks is simply improbable,” and that the blue discoloration could instead be the result of blue wall paint (ibid.). While such a hypothesis is certainly permissible, ignoring arguments to the contrary certainly is not. But that is exactly what Markiewicz and his colleagues subsequently did. Here is what they quoted in their paper in footnote 4 on the last page (p. 27): Ernst Gauss, which used to be a pen name of mine, Vorlesungen über Zeitgeschichte, which means Lectures on Contemporary History. This book is the German predecessor of the currently available book Lectures on the Holocaust. Its first edition was published in early 1993. In it, I explained with the same arguments as presented here, and supported by the same sources of expert literature, how Prussian Blue can form in masonry after exposure to hydrogen cyanide, and which factors are favorable. Although he quoted the book, Markiewicz ignored those arguments completely. That book also addressed specifically the many deficiencies and fallacies of the Austrian paper quoted by Markiewicz, in particular the demonstrably false hypothesis that the blue discoloration of the Auschwitz, Stutthof and Majdanek fumigation walls could be the results of blue wall paint. Specifically, we read on page 292, quote:
“These cyanide readings can be found not only on the wall’s surface, as would have to be expected in the case of wall paint, but also deep inside the wall and on the outside of the masonry, and also on the bricks. Furthermore, the blue discoloration resembles anything else but a typical coat of paint; in fact, the patchy pattern also proves that the Prussian Blue originated from fumigation gassings.”
There are actually many more arguments clearly showing that the wall-paint hypothesis is nothing more than a red herring conjured up to conceal a fraud:
First, Iron Blue as such is not even sold as wall paint at all, since it lacks sufficiently high lime fastness. It is offered only as a mixture with other blue pigments. But there is no trace of any other blue pigment on these walls.
Second, if this argument were correct, it would be remarkable that the SS, of all the rooms in the concentration camps of the Third Reich, would apply blue paint only to their disinfestation chambers where no one could admire it; and, strangely, always with the same blue: Auschwitz, Birkenau, Majdanek, Stutthof…. All other rooms were merely whitewashed at best.
Third, the disinfestation chambers themselves already had a coat of lime paint. Why would they cover this coat of lime paint with another paint which, in addition, is not even lime-fast? They would therefore have had to wait until the lime paint and plaster had set before one could (re‑)paint the walls. And then it would have been by no means certain that the paint would not furthermore have become stained as a result of chemical reactions.
Fourth, neither would a coat of paint on the inside of the room explain the absence of blue discolorations on the interior walls which were added to the disinfestation wing of Building 5a at a later time. It is striking that only such walls have blue stains which were exposed to hydrogen cyanide.
Fifth, the wall-paint argument is refuted by the fact that none of the colored walls shows any pattern of brush marks and also no identifiable coat of paint, since wall paint consists not only of pigment, but also of a considerable proportion of binding agents to hold the pigment in place and other chemicals. The blue pigment is, however, simply one component of the lime paint, plaster and mortar.
Sixth, the wall-paint argument furthermore fails to explain how the artistic skills of the painters could have succeeded in imitating the brick structure lying beneath the plaster. Such a pattern, however, is fully consistent with the accumulation of cyanides and the formation of Prussian Blue as a result of fumigations, because that depends on the wall’s humidity and temperature, which in turn depends on whether there is mortar or brick behind the plaster.
Seventh, the wall-paint argument does not explain the only-pale-blue tint of the interior south walls of the original disinfestation wing of Building 5a. This, too, can be explained by fumigation, because that interior wall was warmer and dryer than the exterior walls, hence less prone to form Prussian Blue.
Eighth, neither does this wall-paint argument explain the high cyanide content in the superficially white, iron-poor material of the walls of the disinfestation wing of Building 5b – unless one posits that these rooms were painted with an “iron white,” a wall paint that does not even exist. Here, too, the fumigation hypothesis has no trouble explaining this. Since the plaster in that building does not adhere firmly to the underlying wall, moisture cannot easily travel from the wall through the plaster into that room. Thus, accumulation processes on the plaster’s surface are impeded.
The Austrian paper quoted by Markiewicz and colleagues in order to prop up their auxiliary wall-paint hypothesis was published in this political pamphlet. It was written by Josef Bailer and stands out by not having a single reference to any literature, chemical or otherwise, regarding the formation and stability of Prussian Blue, or any other cyanide chemistry, for that matter. In his first footnote, he excuses that fact by stating that his subsequent remarks – quote – “aren’t supposed to be a treatise on the chemistry of hydrogen cyanide” – unquote. How can any researcher take such a paper seriously in the first place that is devoid of any substantiated reasoning? Well, Markiewicz didn’t back up any of his claims with any references to chemical literature either, as can be seen from his meagre footnotes. So, I guess ignorant birds of the same feather flock together. And yet, these two vacuous papers serve as the linchpin for the orthodox musings on the chemistry of Auschwitz.
Anyway, after Markiewicz and his colleagues had picked an analytical method that wouldn’t find anything anywhere, no matter how hard they looked, they found that the readings of samples taken from fumigation chambers were similar – that is to say, non-existing – to those taken from claimed homicidal gas chambers. Hence, they concluded that the history of both groups of samples must also have been similar. So, because we know that Zyklon-B gassings took place on a grand scale in the fumigation chambers, they concluded that similar Zyklon-B gassings must also have taken place in the claimed homicidal gas chambers. And Bingo! The reality of homicidal gassings at Auschwitz had been confirmed! Because the absence of any evidence proves what needs to be demonstrated!
So, how do you prove that a civilization exists on Mars? Well, first you take a detection device that cannot detect civilizations. Then you use it to measure the civilization existing on earth. Your device will show some value close to zero. Next, you train your instrument on Mars. Here, too, the instrument shows a value close to zero. Hence, you conclude that a civilization similar to ours must indeed exist on Mars, for the values measured in both cases are similar!
Of course, if you care to look, there would be a similar civilization “value” for the Moon, for Mercury, Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Uranus, and Pluto; for the sun, for Alpha Centaury, for the Andromeda Nebula, and wherever you train your smart device. Smart? Really?
There are people who take the Polish frauds around Jan Markiewicz seriously. Some don’t know better, because they simply trust quote-unquote “renowned” researchers, but others do know better, such as the Jewish-American chemist Dr. Richard Green. The psychology behind his persistent denial of reality is worth its own documentary, so I won’t dwell on it here.
It goes without saying that the lack of any reproducible, reliable cyanide readings in wall samples taken from claimed homicidal gas chambers does not conclusively prove that no gassings took place there. After all, most premises fumigated with Zyklon B don’t exhibit such residues either, as I mentioned before. But then again, so do all buildings that were never exposed to the gas.