The homicdal gas chamber at Auschwitz are not gas chambers

The Blue Stains Pro's case is built on the premise that cyanide gas always produces substantial blue stains that are virtually indelible, and that the amount of staining is proportional to the amount of cyanide exposure. The grounds for that premise is that the delousing chambers left intact show blue staining. The premise is wrong because: 1. Not all the brick walls of the delousing chambers show blue staining. Pro explains that by saying there must be some variation in the brick which enables some brick to resist staining while other brick stains readily. Yet Pro offers no evidence that brick used in the construction of gas chambers is the type that stains rather than the type that does not stain. 2. Staining absolutely requires iron in a surface for it to be subject to staining, and even then it may not stain, per the non-staining brick in the delousing chambers. Pro asserts that all the gas chambers were constructed with brick surfaces, but the pictures he shows clearly contradict that assertion. His picture of the ceiling of Krema II shows a paint-like coating hanging loose in pieces. If there is no iron in the coating, the norm, it would not have stained. The picture he shows of Majdanek clearly has plaster over the brick on the walls, because there are a few places where the plaster has recently come loose, exposing brick. The ceiling and beams are concrete. Plaster and concrete do not contain iron, so they don't stain. Pro previously showed pictures of a delousing chamber with stained walls, but the concrete floor was not stained. An historical account identified the walls in the gas chamber of Bunker 1 at Auschwitz as painted white. The samples of rubble collected for testing were noted as comprising plaster. Sources agree that if a stain layer exists it is extremely thin, one-tenth the diameter of a human hair. Hence even a thin coating of paint would obviate staining. 3. Pro offers no experimental evidence that brick or any other material is easily stained by cyanide. I cited sources that say it at best difficult to get staining on brick, because the iron in brick is tightly bound in an oxide. Pro offered no experimental evidence that staining is resistant to weathering. The gas chamber ruins had been exposed to rain flows for decades. Pro's examples of staining were intact delousing chambers. 4. Pro argues that exposure to cyanide gas must be relatively lengthy to guarantee death, contradicting the testimony that screams stopped quickly. I rebutted that it is unlikely that the Nazis would care if the victims were really dead, so long as they were immobilized long enough for cremation. Pro did not make a counter argument. 5. Analysis by the IFR showed traces of cyanide in all the gas chambers and ruins of gas chambers. Pro argues that the concentrations should have been greater, but the amount of retained cyanide depends critically upon the nature of the surfaces and the effects of weather, and those factors are ignored by deniers. The IFR found no traces of cyanide in the control samples from living quarters, but Rudolf said he found traces. The complaint against the IFR report is that the Polish investigators did not find as much of a trace as deniers claim they should. The deniers' error is supposing that delousing chambers provide an accurate baseline. Pro makes much of the IFR failing to respond directly to Rudolf, a critic who would never be satisfied. Others, however, did thoroughly refute Rudolf. Other physical evidence Pro begins with the claim that the reconstructed gas chamber at Auschwitz was an air raid shelter. History shows that it was originally a mortuary, then was converted to a gas chamber, and finally to an air raid shelter. References showed that the Auschwitz museum was designed as a monument to Poles, with the chimney being constructed as a symbol of the camp. No doubt is raised that chimneys were a prominent feature of the camp, hence they are appropriately symbolic. It's inconsequential that some museum attendants do not know the full history of the reconstruction 50 years later. Pro contends that there were no holes in the ceiling of Krema II. However, references state that holes in the walls were used in some gas chambers, and the Krema II walls were destroyed. Pro contends that ventilating the gas chambers could not be done in the 20 to 30 minutes claimed by witnesses. The references indicated that powerful ventilation fans were sometimes used and that door arrangements were designed to facilitate ventilation. In early experiments ventilation was poor, and SS men wore gas masks to clear the bodies. Cyanide gas is lighter than air, so it is not going to be "trapped" under bodies as the spaces would not be gas tight. Imagine trying to casually "trap" hydrogen or helium. I referenced sources explaining the use of cyanide rather than carbon monoxide was for convenience. The Nazis had a lot of Zyklon B, whereas generating carbon monoxide required running a diesel engine detuned for incomplete combustion. Pro said that there were no mass graves found at Treblinka, an irrelevant claim I did not investigate. (Ashes were sometimes dumped in rivers, to be carried away.) However, substantial remains of ashes and bone fragments were found at Auschwitz. Documentary Evidence A large body of evidence for the existence of the gas chambers at Auschwitz was compiled by Pressac, which I referenced at length. "Pressac's analysis is at once exhaustive and convincing. It is based on primary documents and testimonies, original architectural plans, photographs, drawings, worksheets, and schematics. A particularly powerful analysis is found in Chapter 8 of Part Two, entitled "One proof ... one single proof". Thirty nine criminal traces, beginning at page 429. Pressac's book is a definitive proof of the use of poison gas to murder Jews at Auschwitz and it is based on primary sources from the Nazis. There is no doubt." Pro cited only two trivial errors in 500+ pages assembled by Pressac. One of the two errors had also been made by denier Leutner. Pro claimed that Rudolf had refuted Pressac. Rudolf's "refutation" mainly was the claim that documents retrieved from Russian archives on microfilm were invalid solely because they were on microfilm. (Russians liberated the camp and had obtained most of the documents.) Rudolf's claim is denial without proof. Rudolf was regretably denied free speech in Europe. However, everything was published in the United States and even posted on the web, so no data or arguments were suppressed. Eye Witness Accounts Among the many accounts, a German doctor, Johann Kremer, wrote in his diary of witnessing a mass gassing at Auschwitz, "After driving all of them into the gas chamber, the door was closed and an SS man in gas-mask threw contents of Cyclon tin through an opening in the side wall. The shouting and screaming of the victims could be heard through the opening ... The shouts were hear for a very short while. I would say some minutes..." I cited confirming accounts of two other Germans and two Poles. Hoess, the Auschwitz commander, testified to the gassings. There are confirming accounts by camp survivors. Pro did not refute the testimony, nor did he provide any conflicting testimony. Methodology The basic methodology of conspiracy theory is to assert a premise, in this case that blue stains are an inevitable consequence of cyanide use, and then stick to that premise all evidence notwithstanding. Never mind that, for example, only some walls of the delousing chambers show staining or that the intact delousing chambers were never expose to weathering. Then all contradictory evidence, such as documents and testimony is casually dismissed as being "obviously" false. It doesn't work. The resolution is negated.