Five Years for This? Part One

Part 2

Five years ago (former) Holocaust affirmer Myles Power was challenged with debunking Chemistry of Auschwitz, by Germar Rudolf. On 12/17/22 he released his response to the challenge in the form of an article. The very same day a user on the CODOH forum had a rebuttal of Power’s article. Many other users also joined in the critical analysis of the article.

Power’s article has 1,869 words. If you take out the hyperbole, personal opinions, self-aggrandizing and and unrelated story about Oskar Gröning you’re left with less than half that.

With the fluff removed we are left with these four talking points.

1. “For example in an early addition, Rudolf regurgitates an argument from a fellow revisionist and former roommate, Gerald Fredrick Töben, who stated that one of the doors found in Crematorium I was not gas tight and therefore the room where it was situated could not have functioned as a gas chamber. Rudolf states that “This door is neither of sturdy construction, nor is it air-tight (note the keyhole). It is partly glazed and opens inwards i.e., into the room, where corpses were allegedly piling up”. However soon after the publication Rudolf discovered that the flimsy wooden door was not the same door used when the building was retrofitted into a gas chamber. Not wanting to remove this easily debunked keystone of the revisionist movement, Rudolf frames the argument as if Leuchter is the one who made it when he visited the site in the 1980s”
2. “Rudolf illegally obtained samples from Auschwitz and covertly had them tested for the presence of a specific family of hydrogen ferrocyanides, commonly known as Prussion [sic] blues. Unable to find their presence in the samples he stole, he concluded that no gassing took place. Like with Leuchter, Rudolf’s reasoning and conclusion are wrong because Prussian blues would not necessarily be formed in the conditions found in homicidal gas chambers. This is due to the fact that their synthesis is sensitive to concentration, temperature, the amount of carbon dioxide present (from humans exhaling), presence of water, and the presence of Fe (III) that is already complexed with cyanide. In order to prove his thesis, Rudolf needed to demonstrate that these compounds can form in the conditions found in the homicidal gas chambers – something which he was unable to do, rendering his conclusion bassless. Rudolf, like Leuchter also erroneously believes Prussian blues to be the major form of cyanide residue discounting all other compounds”
3. “Additional fundamental flaws have been pointed out by many others. Gilles Karmasyan pointed out that Rudolf based the quantities of hydrogen cyanide released on a single figure which he deceitfully used to base an evaporation rate curve from before concluding that the rate of release of the deadly gas is too slow to kill anyone in a few minutes. To come to his conclusion, he ignores the importance of temperature and the simple and dark fact that human body temperature is way above the boiling point of hydrogen cyanide.”
4. “Others have taken issue with Rudolf’s baseless claim that no forensic analysis was conducted on facilities at Auschwitz-Birkenau after the camp’s liberation. In reality toxicological analysis was carried out as early as 1945 by the Krakow Forensic Institute. They collected samples from, among other places, the ruins of Krematorium II and discovered the presence of cyanide compounds. Traces of hydrogen cyanide were also found in metal objects found in the hair or victims, such as pins, clasps, and gold-plated glasses holders. Even Rudolf claims about the lack of holes in the roof of the gas chambers has been thoroughly debunked. “

The first talking point concerns Rudolf correcting a mistake. Power accuses Rudolf of scapegoating the blame on Leuchter in an apparent attempt to make Rudolf look deceitful. However the flimsy door was mentioned in The Leuchter Reports (page 16). I will classify this point under ‘nitpick’. One thing is for sure however, the door to Crema I was not made of steel.

The second talking point seems to have some more substance, unless you’ve actually read the book. First let me point out that it doesn’t matter if Rudolf obtained the samples legally or illegally when it comes to the outcome of the forensic tests. Power states, “Prussian blues would not necessarily be formed in the conditions found in homicidal gas chambers…” This is due to the fact that their synthesis is sensitive to concentration, temperature, the amount of carbon dioxide present (from humans exhaling), presence of water, and the presence of Fe (III) that is already complexed with cyanide. Rudolf needed to demonstrate that these compounds can form in the conditions found in the homicidal gas chambers – something which he was unable to do, rendering his conclusion bassless.”.

You actually don’t have to read Rudolf’s book in order to see that the conditions Power listed are addressed, it’s all in the table of contents:

Lastly Power says this, “Rudolf, like Leuchter also erroneously believes Prussian blues to be the major form of cyanide residue discounting all other compounds.” What compounds is Rudolf discounting? What compounds would cyanide gas leave behind that would still be detectable today? If you are unable to name them I will have to render this statement baseless.

The question for Power is what, if any, errors are there in Rudolf’s conclusions? You can’t just state that they’re wrong and then give no reason why.

It is doubtful that Myles will ever answer any further questions being that he announced that he has exited the realm of Holocaust affirmation, thereby closing himself off to defending his article. Myles is going to believe what he wants to believe, it’s not about historical accuracy or science.

Read part two where I address the last points and more!