The most important Photograph / corpse color

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
Friedrich Paul Berg
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 938
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2003 11:16 am

Re: The most important Photograph

Postby Friedrich Paul Berg » 6 years 10 months ago (Fri Oct 26, 2012 9:16 pm)

Special thanks to Friedrich Jansson for his posts above with those excellent images. The first eight images in that pdf are numbered as if they came from a textbook. Can you give the name of that textbook, please? As someone who has spent a great deal of time searching for good color photos of corpses of people killed by CO or cyanide, I know how hard it is to find such photos even in major reference books or websites on forensic medicine. Please do much more.

As to the arguments of HC, I find it hard to believe they seriously believe in their far-fetched arguments themselves. I think they know they are trapped and are simply stalling for time--but time for what? New laws perhaps to outlaw or block any criticism of their new religion just as Ulick-Rex had his image of page 83 blocked?

Our problem will be to bring widespread public attention (not just here on CODOH) to the dramatic facts and counterarguments.

Image
Friedrich Paul Berg
Learn everything at http://www.nazigassings.com
Nazi Gassings Never Happened! Niemand wurde vergast!
The Holocaust story is a hoax because 1) no one was killed by the Nazis in gas chambers, 2) the total number of Jews who died in Nazi captivity is miniscule compared to what is alleged.

friedrichjansson
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 228
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 2:20 pm

Re: The most important Photograph / corpse color

Postby friedrichjansson » 6 years 10 months ago (Fri Oct 26, 2012 11:32 pm)

The first eight photos are from "Atlas of Forensic Pathology" by Joseph A. Prahlow and Roger W. Byard (2012)
The next two photos are from "Color Atlas of Forensic Medicine and Pathology," edited by Charles A. Catanese (2010)
The two photos after that are from "Color Atlas of Forensic Pathology" by Jay Dix (2000)
The final two are from "Encyclopedia of Forensic and Legal Medicine," edited by Jason Payne-James, Roger W Byard, Tracey S Corey, and Carol Henderson (2005, four volumes)

By the way, I downloaded all these books (and others) from http://libgen.info/ - you can find all the books I have by searching that site for phrases like "forensic pathology" "forensic medicine" "forensic science" "toxicology" and so on. My research thus far has simply been to look at all the books I could find and pull out all the passages pertaining to corpse color for carbon monoxide or cyanide victims. If anyone here has access to online journals through a university, please let me know - there are several articles that I'd like to look at that aren't open access.

User avatar
borjastick
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2484
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:52 am
Location: Europe

Re: The most important Photograph / corpse color

Postby borjastick » 6 years 10 months ago (Sat Oct 27, 2012 3:37 am)

Congratulations to Occam's Razor for a very informative and clear post about this subject. It is in essence a simple equation but is complicated by various factions and spurious scientific interpretation. But occam's razor has made it accessible so well done to him. I found his post enjoyable to read yet very informative.
'Of the four million Jews under Nazi control in WW2, six million died and alas only five million survived.'

'We don't need evidence, we have survivors' - israeli politician

Friedrich Paul Berg
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 938
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2003 11:16 am

Re: The most important Photograph / corpse color

Postby Friedrich Paul Berg » 6 years 10 months ago (Sat Oct 27, 2012 11:42 am)

Occam's Razor wrote above:

So normally your venous blood looks bluish through the skin because it has low oxygen content.


That is a serious error, my friend. The closest one will get to "bluish" in a living person or within only an hour of death is a cyanotic appearance over very small areas of the body which I have explained at some length. That kind of error will be jumped upon by the hoaxers as "proof" that they are right. And "cyanotic" is NOT a medical word for "blue."

For example, after death by strangulation or a hanging where a "bluish" appearance would be expected if Occam's Razor were correct--it is very hard to determine the cause of death from any outward signs. The corpse does NOT appear blue or bluish anywhere. In Forensic Pathology by DiMaio and DiMaio, second edition, 2001 on page 231 we have:
If an individual commits suicide by the use of a plastic bag and the bag is removed prior to the notification of the authorities, a medical examiner cannot determine the cause of death by autopsy.

From the same standard reference as above but from page 252:
In most hangings. the face is pale and the tongue is protruding and "black" from drying (Figure 8.19).


There is no mention of any bluish appearance anywhere in this reference work in connection with such deaths. In other words, the imagined bluish appearance of such corpses--from oxygen-poor blood, or whatever--is pure myth and is NOT, I dare say, supported by even one credible reference work on forensic pathology. Advanced chemical theory may look so impressive in our discussion--but the hard day to day reality based on actual observation is the bottom line -- and that looks quite different.

To get close to the subtlety of the problem, here is an image of a strangled child from the G Austin Gresham book I referenced earlier:
Image

Note that there is nothing there that really stands out as blue or bluish. It takes some real experience, even expertise, to identify the lips as "bluish cyanotic." Even the ligature mark to the neck does NOT appear bluish or blue at all.

Image
Friedrich Paul Berg
Learn everything athttp://www.nazigassings.com
Nazi Gassings Never Happened! Niemand wurde vergast!
Last edited by Friedrich Paul Berg on Sat Oct 27, 2012 3:15 pm, edited 7 times in total.
The Holocaust story is a hoax because 1) no one was killed by the Nazis in gas chambers, 2) the total number of Jews who died in Nazi captivity is miniscule compared to what is alleged.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9835
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: The most important Photograph / corpse color

Postby Hannover » 6 years 10 months ago (Sat Oct 27, 2012 12:33 pm)

So normally your venous blood looks bluish through the skin because it has low oxygen content.

Indeed, this is not true. My understanding is that the blue color has to do with the absorption of light, a physics issue, not an oxygen issue. When you give blood from a blue vein (via an airtight syringe and into an airtight vial) it's readily apparent that the blood is not blue. There is no such thing as blue blood.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

User avatar
Kingfisher
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1673
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:55 pm

Re: The most important Photograph / corpse color

Postby Kingfisher » 6 years 10 months ago (Sat Oct 27, 2012 1:26 pm)

Hannover wrote:
So normally your venous blood looks bluish through the skin because it has low oxygen content.

Indeed, this is not true. My understanding is that the blue color has to do with the absorption of light, a physics issue, not an oxygen issue. When you give blood from a blue vein (via an airtight syringe and into an airtight vial) it's readily apparent that the blood is not blue. There is no such thing as blue blood.

- Hannover

All colour is to do with absorbtion of light. Arterial blood is bright red, resulting from its high oygen content. Venous blood with its lower oxygen content is a much darker red, as you see when you give a blood sample. In the veins, against the pink backgound, it appears blue.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9835
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: The most important Photograph / corpse color

Postby Hannover » 6 years 10 months ago (Sat Oct 27, 2012 2:30 pm)

This is an exceptional thread and Fritz Berg and others are to be commended.

Kingfisher:
All colour is to do with absorbtion of light. Arterial blood is bright red, resulting from its high oygen content. Venous blood with its lower oxygen content is a much darker red, as you see when you give a blood sample. In the veins, against the pink backgound, it appears blue.

Yes, that is essentially what I said. The problem is that so many people think that it is the blood that is blue due to lack of oxygen. Go ahead and ask the average lemming why a vein is blue. Stupid I know, but hey ... they pass for educated people these days.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

Friedrich Paul Berg
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 938
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2003 11:16 am

Re: The most important Photograph / corpse color

Postby Friedrich Paul Berg » 6 years 10 months ago (Sat Oct 27, 2012 5:05 pm)

Nearly thrity years ago, I had also t-h-e-o-r-i-z-e-d rather quickly and falsely that corpses of diesel gassings might appear "BLUE" under certain circumstances.

In my first essay "The Diesel Gas Chambers: Myth Within a Myth," The Journal for Historical Review, Volume Five, Number One, Spring 1984, I wrote the following on page 43:

A fatal flaw in the new, non-Diesel, version is the retention of the recurrent claim that corpses were "blue." Although any possible death from Diesel would have been due to lack of oxygen which would in turn have caused a bluish appearance of the corpse, death from gasoline engine exhaust would "only" have been due to carbon monoxide and could "only" have caused a distinctive "cherrry red" or "pink" appearance. ...

I was simply wrong!

The true coloring of corpses from gasoline engine exhaust makes the revisionist case enormously strong. The hoaxers should simply give up. Challenge them to find even one picture anywhere of a BLUE or BLUISH corpse from gasoline engine exhaust or even diesel engine exhaust. Try not to be confused by the perfectly normal livor mortis in non-CO cases where the corpse gradually becomes what some describe as a dark purplish-red or gray coloring. We are dealing with some rather subtle color shadings here which can be made even more confusing by the poor quality of many color photographs of the pre-digital era----but, but, but remind everyone that the coloring of CO caused deaths in nearly all cases is anything but subtle. For CO fatalties, the coloring in nearly all cases is stunning, even specatcular, and unmistable and undeniable.

Image
Friedrich Paul Berg
Learn everything athttp://www.nazigassings.com
Nazi Gassings Never Happened! Niemand wurde vergast!
The Holocaust story is a hoax because 1) no one was killed by the Nazis in gas chambers, 2) the total number of Jews who died in Nazi captivity is miniscule compared to what is alleged.

User avatar
Occam's Razor
Member
Member
Posts: 85
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 7:45 pm

Re: The most important Photograph / corpse color

Postby Occam's Razor » 6 years 10 months ago (Sat Oct 27, 2012 7:18 pm)

Hannover wrote:
So normally your venous blood looks bluish through the skin because it has low oxygen content.

Indeed, this is not true. My understanding is that the blue color has to do with the absorption of light, a physics issue, not an oxygen issue. When you give blood from a blue vein (via an airtight syringe and into an airtight vial) it's readily apparent that the blood is not blue. There is no such thing as blue blood.

I never wrote anything like that. The quote is certainly correct, but not what you conclude from that. Please read my explanation further down.

Friedrich Paul Berg wrote:
Occam's Razor wrote above:
So normally your venous blood looks bluish through the skin because it has low oxygen content.

That is a serious error, my friend. The closest one will get to "bluish" in a living person or within only an hour of death is a cyanotic appearance over very small areas of the body which I have explained at some length. That kind of error will be jumped upon by the hoaxers as "proof" that they are right. And "cyanotic" is NOT a medical word for "blue."

and
From the same standard reference as above but from page 252:
In most hangings. the face is pale and the tongue is protruding and "black" from drying (Figure 8.19).


If the tongue is already "black from drying" the blood is already in the lower body parts because of hypostasis. Not a good example.

I should have explained that better.

Blood certainly doesn't look blue, no matter if it is oxygenated or not. I never claimed that.
I said:
So normally your venous blood looks bluish through the skin because it has low oxygen content.

Notice I said "through the skin". That's not a coincidence.
And later I wrote:
As Friedrich Paul Berg has pointed out in this thread, deoxygenated blood may not be really blue, but unlike oxygenated blood it looks bluish through the skin.


You are right that cyanosis is not always used in the sense that it necessarily means bluish color. But technically it should. The word clearly points to the Greek word for blue.
As you have noticed, even many scientists use the word in a different way. It's often used as a substitute for hypoxia (lack of oxygen in tissue):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypoxia_(medical)

In other words, if you have a scientific article where they talk about cyanosis, you must try to figure out from the context in which way they use the word. Just a few days ago I came across such an article, where cyanosis was used to describe hypoxia, not bluish discoloration.

But medical textbooks define cyanosis clearly and unmistakably as bluish discoloration. Look what wikipedia says:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanosis
Cyanosis is the appearance of a blue or purple coloration of the skin or mucous membranes due to the tissues near the skin surface being low on oxygen. The onset of cyanosis is 5.0 g/dL of deoxyhemoglobin.[1] The bluish color is more readily apparent in those with high hemoglobin counts than it is with those with anemia. Also the bluer color is more difficult to detect on deeply pigmented skin. When signs of cyanosis first appear, such as on the lips or fingers, intervention should be made within 3–5 minutes because a severe hypoxia or severe circulatory failure may have induced the cyanosis.
The name cyanosis, literally means "the blue disease" or "the blue condition". It is derived from the color cyan, which comes from kyanos, the Greek word for blue.[2]
Definition
Cyanosis is defined as a bluish discoloration, especially of the skin and mucous membranes, due to excessive concentration of deoxyhemoglobin in the blood caused by deoxygenation.
1. ^ Mini Oxford Handbook of Clinical Medicine (7th ed.). p. 56.
2. ^ Mosby’s Medical, Nursing and Allied Health Dictionary. Mosby-Year Book (4th ed.). 1994. p. 425.


And you're also right that the color usually isn't really blue. It's often more bluish-reddish or violet / purple. And that's how most textbooks describe it.

I used the words bluish / blue for simplification. But do you really want to imply that the word cyanosis has nothing to to with a bluish-reddish or violet / purple skin discoloration? I have looked it up in several medical textbooks. They all say just that.

Here's wikipedia again:
Image
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypoxia_(medical)
Signs and symptoms
The symptoms of generalized hypoxia depend on its severity and acceleration of onset. In the case of altitude sickness, where hypoxia develops gradually, the symptoms include headaches, fatigue, shortness of breath, a feeling of euphoria and nausea. In severe hypoxia, or hypoxia of very rapid onset, changes in levels of consciousness, seizures, coma, priapism, and death occur. Severe hypoxia induces a blue discoloration of the skin, called cyanosis. Because hemoglobin is a darker red when it is not bound to oxygen (deoxyhemoglobin), as opposed to the rich red color that it has when bound to oxygen (oxyhemoglobin), when seen through the skin it has an increased tendency to reflect blue light back to the eye. In cases where the oxygen is displaced by another molecule, such as carbon monoxide, the skin may appear 'cherry red' instead of cyanotic.

The explanation with the reflection of the blue light is not entirely correct. See my explanation further down. (Wikipedia writes a lot of BS). But look at the photo.

Have you never seen a child in a swimming pool that started to shiver and got blue lips? I have. Technically it might not have been really blue, rather a dark purple with a bluish tinge. But the first thing that came to mind was: That child just turned blue! A striking color change. And that's not "advanced chemical theory", not even textbook knowledge. It's real life experience. I'm an eyewitness, so to speak. The lips were really dark, but the rest of the face was also affected. Google it. It's not a rare phenomenon.
Never had a bruise? A bruise can turn completely blue! See further down for explanation. It's the blood.

But first let me try to explain what I meant, when I said that you can turn red, when you can turn blue.
First, I intentionally oversimplified and dramatized it a little bit, to get a catchy slogan.

I think it sounds better as "If you can turn bluish-reddish or violet / purple, you can also turn rosy / reddish."

Second, the more or less bluish appearance is not entirely based on an illusion. Look at your veins on your wrist. Most fair-skinned people can see the veins on their wrists, and they look clearly bluish. I've studied this phenomenon a few months ago when I read the HC article, and again today.

As mentioned, blood isn't blue, no matter if it's oxygenated or not.

If white light falls on the skin the following happens:
The short wavelengths, in other words, the blue portion of the light, doesn't penetrate very deeply into the skin. Most of it is either reflected immediately, or absorbed. According to my information, about 25% is reflected, the rest absorbed. The longer wavelengths (for simplicity's sake I cover only the red portion / red light) penetrate deeper into the tissue. About 50% of it is absorbed by the tissue, the rest is reflected.
25% reflected blue light is still a lot and is the reason why the skin of fair-skinned people looks rather white. But the slightly bigger amount of reflected red light is the reason why the skin of fair-skinned people has a slight rosy or reddish tinge, as opposed to a green or bluish tinge.
Now why do veins on wrists look bluish?
Because in the area of a vein, the light hits the blood in the vein. And compared to the surrounding tissue, there's a lot of blood in veins like those in our wrists. And here's the point: The blood in these blood vessels absorbs more red light than the surrounding tissue. Remember, the blue light is already either reflected or absorbed in the outer skin layer. As a result, less red light is reflected in this area. So instead of 25% reflected blue light (reflected from the outer skin) and 50% reflected red light, now we may have only 5% (my speculation, don't know the exact percentage) reflected red light, but still 25% reflected blue light. The result is that it looks bluish to our eyes.

Now, at first it might sound counter-intuitive that red blood absorbs red light and causes a bluish visual impression. After all, blood looks red because it reflects a lot of red light, and absorbs most of the other wavelengths.

Let's look at how hemoglobin interacts with light:
Hemoglobin, both oxyhemoglobin and deoxyhemoglobin absorb a rather low amount of red light (long wavelengths), a large amount of green light (medium wavelengths) and a moderate amount of blue light. As I write this I do have the absorption spectra of both hemoglobin derivatives in front of me, but I'm too lazy to post them. Google them, if you're interested. If you shine white light (mixture of all colors) at a blood sample, it reflects a lot of red light, almost no green light and a little bit of blue light. As a result it looks, big surprise, red.

The difference between oxyhemoglobin and deoxyhemoglobin is this:
Deoxyhemoglobin absorbs a little bit more red light and a little bit less blue light. So the reflected light is a little bit darker, and has a little bit more blue in it, but which isn't easily visible, because the red part still dominates by far. In our eyes this blood looks simply darker.

The point is this: Red blood reflects a lot of red light and absorbs most of the other wavelengths. But it still absorbs more red light then skin and subcutaneous tissue. That's why skin and subcutaneous tissue look lighter, and blood rather dark.

So the bluish look of veins is caused by the interaction of light with the skin, tissue and blood. And it doesn't matter how much of the other wavelengths (green, blue) are reflected or absorbed by blood, because most of this light portion is already either reflected or absorbed in the outer skin layers. Important is the red portion that is absorbed by the blood in the deeper tissue layers, where the vein sits.
So a certain amount of blue light is reflected by the skin. And veins absorb a higher proportion of red light that normal tissue. The result is, that the reflected light is almost exclusively blue light when it hits the area of a vein. Or more precisely, the blue portion is reflected from the skin, the red portion is absorbed by the blood in the vein. And that's only possible, because red light penetrates deeper into the skin than blue light.

This whole mechanism is true for blood that is rich in oxygen and for blood that is low in oxygen.
But lack of oxygen, which leads to a higher proportion of deoxyhemoglobin, enhances this effect. Deoxyhemoglobin reflects even less red light, but a little bit more blue light (which is probably not as important, because only little blue light will reach the vein). Therefore you get a darker skin color with a slightly bluish tinge. Which can vary, and you can debate what is the best way to describe this tinge. Often it looks more violet / purple. And normally this effect is most pronounced for veins in a certain depth, and a certain size. Like those in our wrists.

An interesting experiment is this: Take a strong light source and shine it from the other side through your hand. Now, most of it will not come through, but a little bit. And now everything looks red. The tissue looks bright red, while bigger blood vessels look darker - because they absorb more red light! And the blue portion of the light doesn't reach the other side at all, because it is completely reflected or absorbed at the outer skin layer of the other side.

My point is this:

The pivot of the whole issue is hemoglobin. Hemoglobin is responsible for skin discoloration. Chemically speaking, hemoglobin is a dye. A dye has a certain absorption spectrum which determines what color you see if you shine light on it. And if you modify the dye molecule, you modify the absorption spectrum - the color changes. That's why carboxyhemoglobin, oxyhemoglobin and deoxyhemoglobin all have a slightly different color.
Ever had a bruise? A bruise is caused by blood that seeps into the surrounding tissue. At first you don't see much, the area may be swollen or slightly reddish. Then it turns blue. And a bruise can turn really blue. No optical illusion. That's when the hemoglobin has released its oxygen and becomes deoxyhemoglobin. And then it sometimes turns green or yellow. All these colors are caused by hemoglobin. When hemoglobin is degraded, the absorption spectrum changes, and the colors change.
One of the studies we discussed in this thread mentions the "literal rainbow of cutaneous putrefactive discoloration". That's the degradation of hemoglobin (and some other heme proteins like myoglobin). Same effect.

So we have several eyewitnesses that mention all kinds of skin discoloration. Most of them seem to mention a bluish discoloration. My point?
The author from the HC book chapter claims that victims of CO poisoning often don't show signs of skin discoloration if they are anemic. The medical literature seems to confirm that.
But the cause for the skin discoloration is hemoglobin. If you don't have enough hemoglobin in your blood to show reddish skin discoloration from CO or cyanide poisoning, you don't have enough hemoglobin to show any kind of bluish or any other skin discoloration that is mediated through the color of hemoglobin either. They can't claim that we shouldn't expect reddish skin discoloration because the victims were all anemic, and at the same time tell us that the descriptions of bluish corpses from several "eyewitnesses" are perfectly reasonable.

I didn't make that up.

Look again at the wikipedia entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanosis
Cyanosis is the appearance of a blue or purple coloration of the skin or mucous membranes due to the tissues near the skin surface being low on oxygen. The onset of cyanosis is 5.0 g/dL of deoxyhemoglobin.[1] The bluish color is more readily apparent in those with high hemoglobin counts than it is with those with anemia. Also the blue color is more difficult to detect on deeply pigmented skin. When signs of cyanosis first appear, such as on the lips or fingers, intervention should be made within 3–5 minutes because a severe hypoxia or severe circulatory failure may have induced the cyanosis.
The name cyanosis, literally means "the blue disease" or "the blue condition". It is derived from the color cyan, which comes from kyanos, the Greek word for blue.[2]
Definition
Cyanosis is defined as a bluish discoloration, especially of the skin and mucous membranes, due to excessive concentration of deoxyhemoglobin in the blood caused by deoxygenation.
1. ^ Mini Oxford Handbook of Clinical Medicine (7th ed.). p. 56.
2. ^ Mosby’s Medical, Nursing and Allied Health Dictionary. Mosby-Year Book (4th ed.). 1994. p. 425.


I found several references to this phenomenon in the medical literature: People with anemia are less likely to show signs of cyanosis! And this statement can only refer to bluish discoloration (and it may indeed look rather purple), because otherwise it wouldn't make sense. People with anemia are certainly much more likely to suffer from hypoxia, because they have less hemoglobin to transport oxygen. But they are less likely to show any kind of bluish or other discoloration because of that, precisely because they lack hemoglobin.

If you don't believe me, look it up in the medical literature. Look for cyanosis and anemia.

We're both trying to advance a slightly different reason why the eyewitness claims are not very credible.
I say, if someone cannot show a reddish skin discoloration, then he can't show a bluish discoloration either.

At the same time I have tried to make it clear, that I think the whole claim is BS. I wrote that it's completely unbelievable that virtually all of the alleged gassing victims were in such a severely anemic condition that none of them showed any sign of reddish discoloration. And you wrote something similar.

The other argument that you're trying to advance is that a pronounced blue discoloration is a very rare event, no matter what caused it. Please correct me if I misinterpret you.

You're right, when cyanosis appears, it's not really blue, it's usually rather purple, and it's usually not the whole body.

But I hope you agree with this: According to the official narrative, the victims were gassed with cyanide, mainly in Auschwitz, and with engine exhaust in the Reinhardt camps. And now they say it was gasoline engines. Because the Diesel engines wouldn't have worked in the alleged gassing times.

That means? There shouldn't be any account of bluish bodies at all. There should be plenty of eyewitness accounts of reddish or rosy gassing victims, and descriptions of pink livor mortis, for both gasoline engine exhaust victims and Zyklon B victims. If there were hundreds, or even dozens of such accounts, a few accounts of blue corpses wouldn't matter. But it's the opposite. No description of rosy / pink / reddish corpses at all, but several of mysteriously bluish bodies. That's highly suspicious. That's the anomaly.

And this argument is not damaged in the least when I suggest that cyanosis may sometimes refer to an actual skin discoloration, if only a rather purple one.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9835
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: The most important Photograph / corpse color

Postby Hannover » 6 years 10 months ago (Sat Oct 27, 2012 9:04 pm)

Occam's Razor:

Thanks so much for clarifying matters on this most important topic.

This thread is probably confusing to some who have read it, there's a number of back-and-forth discussions and points which now have been cleared up. The question is, can we get yourself or Fritz Berg to do a formal, structured write-up of this for CODOH, perhaps for the journal, Inconvenient History?

OR, Fritz, interested?

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

Friedrich Paul Berg
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 938
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2003 11:16 am

Re: The most important Photograph / corpse color

Postby Friedrich Paul Berg » 6 years 10 months ago (Sat Oct 27, 2012 9:43 pm)

In the single image that Occam's Razor provides above, the finger tips do appear "bluish" at least in contrast to the rest of the hand. But, the fingertips are only a very small part of the body and I dare say the rest of the body, not just the rest of the hand, would appear rather normal in coloration if only we could have seen it. The rest of the hand that we do see in the photograph is entirely normal in coloration. Would anyone have described the corpse as "nluish?" I think not.

But perhaps someone can find an image of a "bluish" corpse somewhere. They should be especially common among victims of suffocation as in hangings ( entire corpses should appear "cyanotic")--but, the reality is they are not to be found,

At least we should be able to agree that any appearance of bluishness anywhere on the corpse is rather subtle and requiring some interpretation by the viewers (I can't find, for example, any "blue" veins on my body anywhere) whereas the bright cherry RED coloring from fatal CO poisoning is stunning and dramatic without any need for skilled interpreters.

Image
Friedrich Paul Berg
Learn everything athttp://www.nazigassings.com
Nazi Gassings Never Happened! Niemand wurde vergast!
Last edited by Friedrich Paul Berg on Sun Oct 28, 2012 1:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The Holocaust story is a hoax because 1) no one was killed by the Nazis in gas chambers, 2) the total number of Jews who died in Nazi captivity is miniscule compared to what is alleged.

friedrichjansson
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 228
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 2:20 pm

Re: The most important Photograph / corpse color

Postby friedrichjansson » 6 years 10 months ago (Sun Oct 28, 2012 12:09 am)

Here's another photo, which I missed earlier. It comes from "Essential Forensic Biology" by Alan Gunn, and also appears in the 12th edition of "Simpson's Forensic Medicine" as figure 28.1 - but it does not appear in the 13th edition (at least not in the ebook version). The 12th edition (but not the 13th) also contains a mention of the role of anemia: "The external signs of CO poisoning, apart from the symptoms, are a pink coloration of the skin, usually described as ‘cherry-pink’. The nail beds and lips may also show this characteristic colour, but this may not be obvious in the living until high saturations are reached. In the hypostatic areas of the dead body, the pink coloration is usually obvious, but exceptions may be found in the old or anaemic, in whom reduction in haemoglobin content reduces the intensity of the coloration."

essential forensic biology.png


Another claim the HC guys make is that redness does not usually appear before livor mortis:
The visibility of such discoloration before livor mortis (the settling of blood after death), however, is not an often observed phenomenon as Kues’ own sources show


But the first sentence of the passage quoted above is referring to the living when it speaks of pink skin (since it refers to "symptoms").

Here are some more passages from the literature on the appearance of CO cases prior to the formation of livor mortis:

from "Essential Forensic Biology" by Alan Gunn: "Sometimes the cause of death may result in striking changes to normal skin coloration. For example, deaths from carbon monoxide poisoning often result in a cherry red / pink coloration to the skin, lips and internal body organs (Fig. 1.6) [ = the image included above] although if the body is not discovered until several hours after death the coloration may not be immediately apparent owing to the settling of the blood to the dependent regions."

That is to say, Gunn is warning that you might not immediately notice the coloration AFTER livor mortis had fully set in (because the visible areas of skin might not contain any of the hypostatic areas), but assumes it would be visible BEFORE that. (Since in a forensic context you might not want to move the body or undress it until after the scene had been adequately studied, it makes sense that the livor mortis might not be immediately observable - but this obviously doesn't apply to the naked corpses of the holocaust story.)

from "Principles of Biochemical Toxicology" by John Timbrell: "There are many other clinical features [of CO poisoning]: nausea, vomiting, pink skin, mental confusion, agitation, hearing loss, hyperpyrexia, hyperventilation, decrease in light sensitivity, arrhythmias, renal failure and acidosis."

from "Poisoning and Drug Overdose" by Kent Olson: "Flushed red skin may be caused by carbon monoxide poisoning, boric acid toxicity, chemical burns from corrosives or hydrocarbons, or anticholinergic agents." [the context of this passage is clinical - the author is referring to symptoms in a living patient]

from "Color Atlas of Human Poisoning and Envenoming" by James H. Diaz: in table 22.4, titled "Carbon Monoxide: Clinical Manifestations," "cherry-red skin color" is listed as a sign of "severe" carbon monoxide poisoning. The table defines severe CO poisoning as >25% COHb. In cases of CO deaths caused by inhalation of exhaust, the levels of COHb average over 70%.

from "Carbon Monoxide Poisoning" by David Penney: "Symptoms seen in people with higher level CO exposure include severe headache, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, mental confusion, visual disturbances, reddening of the skin (not always), compartment syndrome, loss of muscle tissue, fatigue, hypotension, and coma. Severe exposure can of course be fatal"

astro3
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 335
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 5:52 am

Re: The most important Photograph / corpse color

Postby astro3 » 6 years 10 months ago (Sun Oct 28, 2012 7:56 am)

We have an absolutely unlosable argument here – somewhat due to the REAL SCIENCE input by Occam’s Razor. Its unlosable, because of the very simple difference between red and blue.

So, let's remove all the complicated stuff about ferrous/ferric iron, mitochondrial electron transfer, haemoglobin molecules having no nucleus so being unaffected by cyanide.... and distil it into a few simple sentences for general consumption. How about eg:

• No-one during WW2 reported seeing pink or cherry-red corpses in the German labour-camps.
• Cyanide gas and carbon monoxide are the two main gases alleged to have been lethally used by the Nazis
• They both cause death in a similar manner, by preventing body oxygen absorption.
• They both show red because the oxygenated blood full of oxy-haemoglobin appears red, it cannot lose its oxygen in circulation as it usually does.
• Sometimes carbon monoxide toxicity can fail to show a pink corpse, due to anaemia: but there was no general diagnosis of this in the camps. One would have expected around 90% of corpses to appear pink had CO or Cyanide been a cause of death.
• The ‘shocking pink’ hue of such corpses would have been totally unmistakeable.

That's the science fact, but the story might be just as important: an insecticide Zyklon is used, it gets called Zyklon-Blau because of the blue hue it leaves in walls (so there was never any Zyklon-A, nor Zyklon-C); and false witnesses then imagine that because of this name it leaves blue corpses! So they are going to lose their entire case, the Holohoax imposture is about to shatter, because of bad science.

Occam’s Razor mentions six witnesses who testified to a blue hue on corpses (Zyklon ‘Blau’...) were there any such testimonies given at Nuremberg?

User avatar
Creox
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 152
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 9:32 pm

Re: The most important Photograph / corpse color

Postby Creox » 6 years 10 months ago (Sun Oct 28, 2012 8:54 am)

Just wanted to add that bodies that have been dead for at least an hour will pool blood to the lowest area. So, if they are lying flat on their backs the blood will pool there. In my experience of nursing I have seen this many times. In any case the area does appear bruised, bluish purple. This doesn't change the fact that those who were supposedly gassed should be pink, red. they're gonna have to change their stories!

User avatar
Kladderadatsch
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 254
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 11:08 am

Re: The most important Photograph / corpse color

Postby Kladderadatsch » 6 years 10 months ago (Sun Oct 28, 2012 10:55 am)

A good summary by astro3, but it may need a few changes before it's sent out for general consumption.

astro3 wrote:We have an absolutely unlosable argument here – somewhat due to the REAL SCIENCE input by Occam’s Razor. Its unlosable, because of the very simple difference between red and blue.

So, let's remove all the complicated stuff about ferrous/ferric iron, mitochondrial electron transfer, haemoglobin molecules having no nucleus so being unaffected by cyanide.... and distil it into a few simple sentences for general consumption. How about eg:

• No-one during WW2 reported seeing pink or cherry-red corpses in the German labour-camps.
• Cyanide gas and carbon monoxide are the two main gases [these are pretty much the only ones] alleged to have been lethally used by the Nazis
• They both cause death in a similar manner, by preventing body oxygen absorption.
• They both show red because the oxygenated blood full of oxy-haemoglobin appears red, it cannot lose its oxygen in circulation as it usually does.

Not so. The red appearance in cyanide poisoning is due to oxygen in the blood, but in the case of CO poisioning it's due to the presence of carboxyhemoglobin which then prevents oxygen uptake by erythrocytes. This is dealt with, iirc, somewhere above; at any rate, it should easy enough to fix.

• In either case, the bodies of fatal poisoning victims have a telltale reddish or pinkish appearance. In the case of cyanide poisoning, body cells cannot absorb oxygen from the circulating red blood cells, and so excess oxygen builds up in the blood making it bright red. Here, sufficient oxygen is available in the bloodstream (oxyhemoglobin) but the body cannot use it. In the case of carbon monoxide poisoning, red blood cells take up carbon monoxide in preference to oxygen, but this too makes the blood bright red. Here, sufficient oxygen is not available in the bloodstream because the red blood cells that should be carrying it are stuck carrying carbon monoxide instead (carboxyhemoglobin). Either way, the result is the same: the victim dies for lack of oxygen, and the body takes on a "flushed" appearance due to the unnaturally bright red coloring of the blood beneath the skin.

That might be trimmed down a bit, perhaps, but at least it accounts for the mechanism of both types of poisoning correctly. With the right kind of audience, one could turn it into a little rhyme:

Oxy makes blood red
Carboxy makes blood red
Either way you turn bright pink
And either way you're dead.

(So when they say the Jews turned blue
You know the story isn't true.)


• Sometimes carbon monoxide toxicity can fail to show a pink corpse, due to anaemia: but there was no general diagnosis of this in the camps. One would have XXXexpected around 90%XXX a substantial percentage of corpses to appear pink had CO or Cyanide been a cause of death. [XXX for "cut." (Don't know how to do strike-through code here.) I don't think it's necessary to give a number. That just opens the door for distracting arguments about precise quantification. It should be enough to explain the physical mechanism of the color change to people (the same mechanism that kills you turns your blood bright red) and let common sense do the rest. We can all imagine cases where the pink coloring might not be prominent, or might not be easily noticed. Where the orthodox version falls apart is that it requires us to believe that that always happened.]
• The ‘shocking pink’ hue of such corpses would have been totally unmistakeable.

That's the science fact, but the story might be just as important: an insecticide Zyklon is used, it gets called Zyklon-Blau because of the blue hue it leaves in walls (so there was never any Zyklon-A, nor Zyklon-C) [Not so. There was in fact a Zyklon-A, also using HCN as its active ingredient, and there's no reason to assume that the B of Zyklon-B refers to "Blau" or "Blausaeure." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zyklon_b) However, it probably is true, as Berg and others have noted, that the idea of blue corpses may have had its origin in the association between HCN and Prussian blue.]; and false witnesses then imagine that because of this name it leaves blue corpses! So they are going to lose their entire case, the Holohoax imposture is about to shatter, because of bad science.

Occam’s Razor mentions six witnesses who testified to a blue hue on corpses (Zyklon ‘Blau’...) were there any such testimonies given at Nuremberg?
Der grosse Kladderadatsch war da.

-- D. Eckart Der Bolschewismus von Moses bis Lenin, "Er"


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 4 guests