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/CyanosisCyanosis 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:
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/CyanosisCyanosis 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.
