But before I get into that I would like to address this paragraph written by a self-proclaimed scientist:
Myles complains that revisionists get caught up in minutiae while ignoring the bigger picture. Does Myles not know that Holocausthandbooks.com covers nearly every aspect of the Holocaust and is not only focused on the presence, or lack thereof, of cyanide in the alleged gas chambers? Furthermore, warehouses of personal effects, pictures of the camps (there are no pictures of any of the alleged gas chambers when they were functional) and witness testimony are not scientific evidence nor proof of the Holocaust. A pile of shoes does not prove a gas chamber full of Jews.
Now, let us get into some actual points and see how they fan out.
Power states. “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.” This criticism is unrelated to the lack of presence of Prussian Blue in the gas chamber, rather it is to counter to Rudolf’s point that the cyanide gas wouldn’t evaporate off the Zyklon B pellets quickly enough to be fatal to humans in a few minutes as witnesses claim.”
The following is from the study Power is referencing. Here you can see that they outright discard the factors of pellet distribution, which according to the story was done by pouring them into mesh wire columns, and of humidity. No scientific reasoning is given for the dismissal of these factors apart from the fact that they are not justified by Rudolf. In fact this study is written less like a scientific paper and more like a hit piece.
Thing is, Rudolf does justify their importance. It seems that Power simply repeated another person’s findings without bothering to check into it himself.
Power continues, “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.” Once again I get the feeling that Power did not read Chemistry of Auschwitz, as Rudolf not only mentions the Krakow study, but also tells you why it’s results are inconclusive.
The official narrative is that the alleged gassing victims were forced to strip naked and that their hair was cut by a barber, so traces of cyanide on those items does not make sense for their story. And as Germar pointed out, there is no way to know the origin of these objects.
Finally we have this bold assertion, “Even Rudolf claims about the lack of holes in the roof of the gas chambers has been thoroughly debunked.” No source, no explanation. No wonder he just stuck it awkwardly on the end of a paragraph.
The last part of Power’s article concerns the testimony of Oskar Gröning. Since this topic does not relate to Chemistry of Auschwitz I will save it for another day. (update: You can read my article on Gröning here.)
Power concludes with this statement:
Power has asserted several times that revisionists move the goalposts, but he never says how. Maybe nothing you publish is good enough simply because it is not good enough. If Power is a person who ‘loves to to counter pseudoscience and debunk quackery’ he picked the the wrong side of the Holocaust to defend.