Friday, July 07, 2006

Learn English, "Claudia"!

Author: Sergey Romanov
At the Cesspit we see yet another ignorant neo-Nazi posing as an expert. It is a German denier "ClaudiaRothenbach" (don't assume that it is a female).

"She" writes:
In his affidavit for the trial of Irving against Deborah Lipstadt Dr. Green, the chemist, cites Mazal. As Green writes in a footnote:
Mr. Mazal is the President of the Holocaust History Project and has conducted onsite forensic investigations of Auschwitz.
Now let us read what Mr. Mazal writes:
As may be observed in the eight photographs above, penetration of Prussian Blue into either the wall material inside of the building, or the bricks on the exterior, is minimal, corroborating previous reports. It is possible that very porous materials such as plaster might permit a slightly greater penetration of the stain, but not to the degree claimed, without proof, by Holocaust deniers.
This guy (he is OBE *) tells us that Prussian Blue only moves minimal in wall material. And Dr. Green (chemist and expert) cites Mazal without commenting this bullshit.

Prussian Blue is solid and one of least soluble substances in the universe. So it does not move at all - least at all in wall material.

"Holocaust deniers" know that ant they won't prove that "very porous materials such as plaster might permit a slightly greater penetration of the stain". Never.

I ask again: Where did brainless Green purchase his "Dr. of Chemistry"?
Now, to every person who has both a basic knowledge of English and a brain, it is clear that Mr. Mazal is talking about the depth of the stain. Nowhere he wrote or implied that Prussian Blue somehow "moved".

So is "revisionism" a product of stupidity coupled with the language barrier?

Anyway, down the thread the Cesspit pond life claims that Mr. Mazal is "less than honest" for not accepting an unproven denier claim that HCN can somehow penetrate the wall. Of course, as usual, deniers ignore Mr. Mazal's observations on Prussian Blue in Auschwitz:
There is an as-yet unsolved mystery of how Prussian Blue made its way through apparently solid brick walls leaving it's tell-tale blue stains on the exterior of both bath and delousing chambers in BIa and BIb in Birkenau.
In a still unpublished report, Mr. Mazal gives more details about this mystery. Namely: how did HCN get from the delousing chamber and across several meters onto the inner and even outer walls? For example, the second photo of Germar Rudolf in that thread was not taken in a gas chamber. This wall is separated from the gas-tight door of the delousing chamber by 5.2 meters of space and (partially) by walls of a small room (the walls which don't exhibit Prussian blue staining, by the way). How did that happen? We don't know, but HCN-soaked mattresses might be the answer. Deniers surely have not offered any alternative explanation. So why do the Cesspit nitwits scoff at Mr. Mazal's explanation, without offering any of their own?

Because they are dishonest.

PS: liar "Claudia" (see the comments) doesn't stop. E.g. "she" writes:
What this "expert" wants to tell us is that "penetration" has nothing to do with "move".
Of course, I never wrote such a thing.

PPS: And some pond scum projects:
I already got the impression those Holocaustians like to play with words. This way they can avoid dealing with hard facts. They live in their own world and get gullible others into believing in it.
Of course, it is "Claudia" who plays semantic games, all the while knowing that Mr. Mazal wrote nothing about "moving" Prussian Blue. And of course it is deniers who won't address the point raised above.


claudiarothenbach said...

Sergey writes: “Now, to every person who has both a basic knowledge of English and a brain, it is clear that Mr. Mazal is talking about the depth of the stain.”

I state: Mr. Mazal is writing (and Dr. Green is citing him) about a delicate point in the discussion about CN compounds in the walls of Auschwitz. In this discussion it is important to know that HCN gas is very agile in walls whilest Prussianblue is absolutely not movable.

These are the core characteristics of the most important substances in the Zyklon B gas chamber discussion. It seems that Mazal did not understand the process completely.

Sergey does not know what the word penetration means. He wrote: “Penetration of PB into the wall denotes a depth to which it is found on the wall surface (1 mm, 2 mm etc.).” The truth is that penetration means: (Move into something).

At this point it is important to know that Prussianblue does not move at all.

Here are the words that Mazal should have used instead of “penetration”:
allocation apportionment arrangement assignment dispensation dispersal dispersion disposition dissemination distribution repartition spreading

Seem to be enough!

Roman Werpachowski said...

Rubbish. Every chemical substance has moving particles at non-zero temperatures, otherwise we would have no diffusion, no absorption.

For an example of the usage of the word "penetration" in the context of chemical absorption, see here.

Sergey Romanov said...

I can only repeat my advice. Penetration need not involve a dynamic component. "Penetration of PB" means depth of the stain. If, for example, the stain is 1 mm deep, I can say: "Prussian blue penetrates the wall to the depth of 1 mm". It doesn't mean that at this very moment the PB stain is moving ("penetrates") within the wall. It obviously denotes a static situation - the depth of the stain is 1 mm.

It's that easy. But, as usual, ignorant or lying deniers create laughable arguments out of nothing.

PS: "move" does not even appear among the meanings in

claudiarothenbach said...

Dear Roman Werpachowski, there is penetration in chemistry and physics and many substances penetrate other materials.

But the dispersion of Prussianblue in the walls of Auschwitz is not result of the penetration of Prussianblue - it is caused by the diffusion (penetration) of HCN in the pores followed by adsorption and precipitation.

Because this is the core process of the discussion about the Zyklon B gas chambers it is important to be exact.


claudiarothenbach said...

Sergey writes: "But, as usual, ignorant or lying deniers create laughable arguments out of nothing."

Look into the Green affidavit. There is a whole chapter about the critics on the usage of the wort "extraction" by Rudolf. There is even a reference to another essay (Keren) that also criticises the usage of this word.

And some pages later an error like this.


Sergey Romanov said...

"But the dispersion of Prussianblue in the walls of Auschwitz is not result of the penetration of Prussianblue - it is caused by the diffusion (penetration) of HCN in the pores followed by adsorption and precipitation."

The mistake is only in "Claudia's" fertile imagination. I have already explained that in Mazal's report penetration has nothing to do with "moving". If he were to write: "penetration of Prussian Blue into the wall material was minimal", then he would be talking about the process of diffusion of PB in the wall. He wrote no such thing. He is talking about the current situation (thus "is"), and thus about the depth of the stain. PB is penetrating the wall (though it never moved in the wall). Aqueous solution penetrated the wall (to some degree). It caused PB staining. The the staining penetrates the wall.

claudiarothenbach said...

Sergey is arguing dishonest. Additionally he is changing his argument in the wind.

Mazal's and Green's attempt (based on Roth's "testimony") is that only the first micrometers of the wall contain Prussianblue - because any CN compound not movable in the walls. This way they criticise the sampling of Leuchter.

That is bullshit. And dishonest as well.

Secondly Mazal's attempt is wrong. Prussianblue does not move in walls. Mazal made a mistake and Green put it into a lawsuite report.

If you do not believe it read on:

Sergey Romanov said...

As shown, Mazal made no mistake, and the only people being dishonest are deniers. Mazal never said that PB moved in the walls, and since the mistake has been pointed out to "Claudia", we know that "she" lies.

Sergey Romanov said...

I guess a simple analogy would be rust penetration - rust doesn't move, it is created in situ, but we still can say that rust penetrated.

Anonymous said...

I just finished immersing myself in the streaming videos concerning contrary evidence for diesel engine gassings, burial pit space, disinterment and open air cremations at the "Aktion Reinhardt Camps" here:

Being a bit backwards when it comes to computers (I didn't grow up with them). I couldn't find a way to start a new thread so my comment relevant to this Claudia Rothenbach thread is really a question. Are the bloggers here aware of this website and if so, where can I go to examine any oppositional commentary on it?

Sergey Romanov said...

Hello. Please, check out the "Quick links" reference on the main page. There's a special section on these clips.

And don't forget to check out refutations of individual deniers' arguments (e.g., the posting about why the diesel issue is irrelevant).

Sergey Romanov said...

Better yet, just click here.

Anonymous said...

I like your english conversation blog. It's a good blog for learn english conversation

Anonymous said...

I Like Your Blog, is Really Helpful pls do Visit My Blog to: and Pls do Visit my Profesional Dating Site , 100% Free Dating Site No Charges Ever.

Writer's Block said...


how can you say that the holocaust didn't even happen when there are people and the remains of the people and the concentration camps to prove it? Even more, the place might wear down after many years, but the people, such as Elie Weisel, still remember the horrible things that happened to them and other people. Memory never forgets.