Myles Power shooting his mouth off

[Lamprecht]

Myles continues to dodge. He did a whole video on Germar’s Speedos. Now he’s going back to Leuchter, talking about authorship. Germar says Faurisson told him he was the real author of the Leuchter Report, and Myles already harped on this his last video. If true, sure, that doesn’t look great, but ultimately it doesn’t change the chemical composition of the walls at Auschwitz.

Myles needs to get to the point already. He’s been talking about this for a couple of years and hasn’t even got around to regurgitating Greene yet.

Mike from TRS did a small response to Myles' video. Basically saying the same thing. Myles keeps attacking the people and not the ideas. And his reddit fanbase are too stupid to know the difference.

https://t.me/mpeinovich/2167

That's the main issue I have with his videos as well. When he tries to address the technical/scientific arguments, he makes a fool of himself:

Myles Power - "Debunking Holocaust Denial" video series
viewtopic.php?t=12438

He just goes into personal attacks against people that publish work containing actual arguments relevant to the topic.
He doesn't explain how the arguments are wrong. He can attack Leuchter or Rudolf all day, but I am neither of those individuals, so it doesn't discredit me if I use their work on Auschwitz to make similar arguments against the gassing narrative.
Leuchter scamming people out of money doesn't mean that Jews were gassed at Auschwitz.
Rudolf getting arrested doesn't mean that Jews were gassed at Auschwitz.

Otium:

Myles should be confronted with the examples (which escape me right now) of other alleged gas chambers that contain Prussian blue staining, despite his claim that not enough cyanide was ever used to produce such staining when gassing humans.

Stutthof and Majdanek are mentioned in the thread I linked above responding to one of his previous videos.

[Fred zz]

In the video at the 12:29 mark Miles stated: "I have very very little experience working with the compound"
If this is the case, it will be interesting to see what his arguments are going to be vs Rudolf's experience with HCN.

[Lamprecht]

It doesn't look great but Myles, of course, frames it as being more 'sinister' than it actually is. The report may have been written by Faurisson but keep in mind what it was used for: it was to defend a man who was on trial for "hate speech", a preposterous and unjust law which should not exist. It is not unethical, in my opinion, to use any means necessary to acquit him of these charges or to reduce the outrageous penalty.

Remember, we're talking about the same Myles that tried to discredit Rudolf's report by saying that he took his wall samples illegally. But if he asked, he wouldn't have been given permission to take samples. It's pure desperation.

[Archie]

It doesn't look great but Myles, of course, frames it as being more 'sinister' than it actually is. The report may have been written by Faurisson but keep in mind what it was used for: it was to defend a man who was on trial for "hate speech", a preposterous and unjust law which should not exist. It is not unethical, in my opinion, to use any means necessary to acquit him of these charges or to reduce the outrageous penalty.

Remember, we're talking about the same Myles that tried to discredit Rudolf's report by saying that he took his wall samples illegally. But if he asked, he wouldn't have been given permission to take samples. It's pure desperation.

He also made a huge deal over a comment Fred made about taking the samples back to the US in his luggage with his underwear. As if having the bagged samples surrounded by clothes would affect the samples or cause Prussian blue to degrade.

Fred’s underwear, Germar’s underwear. These are very important topics for Myles.

[fireofice]

According to Myles Power, he says he's going to bring this project to a close and his final video on Germar Rudolf should be out in a week or so.

https://twitter.com/powerm1985/status/1 ... 4923462656

https://twitter.com/powerm1985/status/1 ... 8647162885

Unfortunately, it seems unlikely that Rudolf himself will be able to respond to it in anything like a timely manner, if at all, given that he has stepped down due to extreme pressure and may very well be deported to a German prison soon. Hopefully that doesn't happen.

viewtopic.php?f=2&p=106875

We'll see if he actually responds to the arguments made. If he does, this forum should be ready to review it.

[Hektor]

Aren't we amazed that they are making videos on 'people' and not on technical question and objective evidences.

I got to study the Castle Hill Issue more thoroughly as to make comments on this.


"When I published my first blog post on Holocaust denial 5-years ago, I had no idea how big of a project it would turn into. This was due in part to revisionists moving the goalposts at every opportunity, but now I feel it's time to bring this project to a close."


Do I have to explain why he just explained the bankruptcy of the Holocaust?

It's of course intellectually dishonest what he's doing (accusing those asking for proof of "shifting the goal posts") But it is typical for people that don't have anything worth showing in terms of evidence for their thesis.

[Lamprecht]

Myles made a blog post today:

Myles Power: A Review of the Chemistry of Auschwitz
https://mylespower.co.uk/2022/12/17/a-r ... auschwitz/ | https://archive.vn/Yd8Tx



Regarding Rudolf's book:

The Chemistry of Auschwitz
https://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/02-tcoa.pdf

There is very little substance here. It's mostly just ad hominem attacks. He tries desperately to tie the book into the Leuchter report. He posted on Twitter:

"If, like me, you are able to see through the scientific jargon, The Chemistry of Auschwitz is a carbon copy of the Leuchter report, only written by someone who is competent in their field."

A rather ridiculous claim. That is only based on what, the same conclusion regarding gassings at Auschwitz?
He points out again that Rudolf's samples were taken illegally - as if that makes any difference. His response to the results of the test are merely:

"Prussian blues would not necessarily be formed in the conditions found in homicidal gas chambers"

Except these claims were already addressed in the book he has supposedly read... Myles:

"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."

Except Rudolf addresses this exact point, there's an entire chapter in his book about it:
6. Formation and Stability of Iron Blue
Especially: 6.5. Formation of Iron Blue

"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."

See thread on this article:
phdm article about the evaporation of hydro hydrocyanic acid from zyklon b / "Refutation" of Germar Rudolf
viewtopic.php?t=13396

I don't see why the evaporation rate is such a sticking point for these people; Rudolf is going off of published experiments but they're obsessing over a statement made by someone (not an experiment).
The simple fact is that gassings of Jews with Zyklon-B did not happen at Auschwitz.

Myles:

"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."

Funny that Myles does not even cite the more recent "Krakow report" (Markiewicz et al. 1994) - see section:
8.3.2. Institute for Forensic Research, Krakow

Anyway, the 1945 report is addressed in the book, under:
4.4.1.1. The Polish Auschwitz Trials of 1946/1947

"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."

That actually supports Rudolf's claim. It doesn't make any sense that Jews would be gassed and then their hair removed afterwards. Why would they do that? Why not just do it before? We have all sorts of photos of living Jews with shaved heads, so clearly they were not waiting until the Jews were dead to shave their heads.
Hair was removed to protect against disease-causing insects, mainly lice, that live in human hair.
For some reason they wanted to keep the hair.

Some theories here: viewtopic.php?t=11811
User Hermod also has stated that hair was kept in France for textiles: viewtopic.php?p=105949#p105949

By default, objects would be fumigated on arrival to the camp in case there were insects.
It doesn't have to be that these objects would have HCN on them from a homicidal gas chamber disguised as a shower room; generally, they should have removed all of these objects before going into the showers.

"Even Rudolf claims about the lack of holes in the roof of the gas chambers has been thoroughly debunked."

That's just not true though. In his book, see section:
5.4.1.2.8. Zyklon-B-Introduction Holes

It appears Myles is just summarizing Green's article from 1998: https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... ndex.shtml

Rudolf addresses Green's arguments multiple times in the book.

Myles continues:

Oskar Gröning was a German SS Unterscharführer whose responsibilities included counting and sorting the money taken from prisoners at the Auschwitz concentration camp. After the war, he returned to Germany where he led a normal life, reluctant to talk about his time at the death camp for more than 40 years later until learning about Holocaust denial. He obtained a pamphlet by the Holocaust denier Thies Christophersen which he then mailed back to Christophersen having written his own commentary on it condemning Holocaust denial which included the following.
“I saw everything. The gas chambers, the cremations, the selection process. One and a half million Jews were murdered in Auschwitz. I was there.” – Oskar Gröning

First off, this statement is recent (less than 10 years ago) and made in Germany where "Holocaust denial" is a crime.

Second, it's not an accurate quote. See: viewtopic.php?t=7622

Third, Groening was only sentenced to four years for allegedly being an accessory to murder of 300,000 -- a very light sentence. He actually never served any part of the sentence, since he appealed multiple times and died at age 96. So claiming it happened actually paid off for him. This sort of testimony (with coercion) is the weakest form of evidence that exists.
Myles calls Groening's quotes "self-incriminating statements" but they legitimately are not; they were part of his defense.

Myles:

"However after the legal precedent set in 2011 by the conviction of the former Sobibor extermination camp guard John Demjanjuk in 2015, Gröning was found guilty of being an accessory to the murder of at least 300,000 people."

Funny that Myles would bring up Demjanjuk. Israel convicted Demjanjuk to death for allegedly being "Ivan the Terrible" but it was later proven beyond all doubt that this was false. Demjanjuk then returned back to the USA, and he was extradited back to Germany. He was convicted for merely being present at Sobibor, but died before a final judgment was made at the age of 91.

Myles:

"Gröning’s testimony is a drop in the ocean of evidence demonstrably proving the mass extermination of the people the Nazis considered to be untermensch."

Then why misquote Groening? It's just a drop in the ocean of very weak and/or debunked nonsense.
Also, the "untermensch" claim is wrong. See: viewtopic.php?p=102926#p102926

And why does Myles have to pretend like Rudolf did not know about the Krakow study, when in fact he addresses it in the very book he is supposedly debunking? In fact, Myles consistently claims that Rudolf ignores entire subjects that he actually addresses in the book.

"The evidence is in fact so robust and plentiful that those who don’t believe the holocaust happened are choosing to do so!"

If the evidence is so robust for the so-called "Holocaust" happening, why hasn't Myles shown the alleged "huge mass graves" at Treblinka 2, Sobibor, or Belzec?
Apparently there's a $100,000 reward for it.

See:
https://thisisaboutscience.com

There is actually no physical evidence that has ever been shown to exist that proves "Holocaust deniers" wrong. Yet, if their story was true, there would be massive quantities in exactly known locations.

---

EDIT: I found a blog also addressing the nonsense posted by Myles Power:

Another Dishonest Holocaust Affirmer
https://www.holocaust.claims/auschwitz- ... -affirmer/

[borjastick]

Shuffling the chairs on the Titanic.

Tinkering with the brakes while driving over a cliff.

Obfuscation.

Jokers and virtue signalers like the clown called Myles Power whose real name is probably Brenda Tomkinson, they all do it. They practice magician techniques while avoiding at all costs the massive elephants in the room or a troop of 800lb gorillas about to rip their heads off.

They never deal with the real questions the answers to which would immediately and comprehensively kill their case for a holocaust and mass murder having been committed.

MP is a wind bag ego maniac who probably gets up every morning and struggles to walk past the mirror in his bedroom...

[Otium]

"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."

See thread on this article:
phdm article about the evaporation of hydro hydrocyanic acid from zyklon b / "Refutation" of Germar Rudolf
viewtopic.php?t=13396

I don't see why the evaporation rate is such a sticking point for these people; Rudolf is going off of published experiments but they're obsessing over a statement made by someone (not an experiment).
The simple fact is that gassings of Jews with Zyklon-B did not happen at Auschwitz.

I feel like this needs to be addressed more fully yet, ideally by Germar himself. Hopefully that happens at some point. Because I'm not by any means super informed about these chemical matters I don't even know how relevant this criticism even is in terms of the other criticisms of the gas chambers and the chemical issues.

"Gröning’s testimony is a drop in the ocean of evidence demonstrably proving the mass extermination of the people the Nazis considered to be untermensch."

Then why misquote Groening? It's just a drop in the ocean of very weak and/or debunked nonsense.

Exactly. If there is an ocean of evidence, why not just whip out the best evidence at the get go? The evidence which should just shut down the conversation? I think - or would hope - that ANYONE citing dubious quotes, which even if said, were made 70+ years after the fact and under a completely new system which persecutes people for non-conformity and independant thought, for having differing opinions on epochs in human history (which, sorry to say, doesn't belong to any so-called 'victim group', history belongs to everyone) would be skeptical as to the nature and value of said unfalsifiable "evidence". it's not factual, let alone scientific, to rely on this so-called statement by Gröning which even if said doesn't prove anything.

I wonder, since Myles loves the 'parts per million' argument, has he ever answered the question of how he knows how many Zyklon pellets the 'Nazis' used to allegedly gas these people? How does he know they didn't overkill it and therefore use an amount which would cause the blue staining? Because the idea, or rather the assumption that there's no blue staining because the 'Nazis' used a precise amount of Zyklon B is something which seems to have been glossed over and is, frankly, hard to believe and certainly requires proof.

[Lamprecht]

"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."

See thread on this article:
phdm article about the evaporation of hydro hydrocyanic acid from zyklon b / "Refutation" of Germar Rudolf
viewtopic.php?t=13396

I don't see why the evaporation rate is such a sticking point for these people; Rudolf is going off of published experiments but they're obsessing over a statement made by someone (not an experiment).
The simple fact is that gassings of Jews with Zyklon-B did not happen at Auschwitz.

I feel like this needs to be addressed more fully yet, ideally by Germar himself. Hopefully that happens at some point. Because I'm not by any means super informed about these chemical matters I don't even know how relevant this criticism even is in terms of the other criticisms of the ga chambers and the chemical issues.

It's not relevant at all since there were no homicidal gassings of human beings, simply. It's just nitpicking over non-important issues rather than getting to the meat of it. Which, for Myles, is just "whatever the eyewitnesses said happened - because it's anti-Semitic to accuse them of lying" or whatever.
Myles' comment doesn't even make sense. The Zyklon-B pellets aren't going to be at human body temperature. And Rudolf doesn't ignore the importance of temperature at all. He even shows the following graph:

He also says:
"The radiant heat of the bodies would have accelerated the evaporation by increasing the temperature in the vicinity of the floor"

Note that in the entire article that Myles writes to "debunk" Rudolf's book, he never links to it. It's free online for anyone to read, but he doesn't try to let his readers check it out for themselves. Why wouldn't you link to the book you're reviewing?
He does include a photo he took of his personal copy of the book. Perhaps he doesn't want his readers to be able to check the book out for themselves?
I mean, that is the most likely case, since his rebuttals are mostly just false statements claiming that Rudolf never addressed certain things, when he actually did.

[fireofice]

I feel like this needs to be addressed more fully yet, ideally by Germar himself. Hopefully that happens at some point. Because I'm not by any means super informed about these chemical matters I don't even know how relevant this criticism even is in terms of the other criticisms of the ga chambers and the chemical issues.

Germar has only seemed to respond indirectly to it by updating his book. I don't think he'll do an official response any time soon, probably never.

[Otium]

that Myles does not even cite the more recent "Krakow report" (Markiewicz et al. 1994) - see section:
8.3.2. Institute for Forensic Research, Krakow

He also seems to get the date wrong in the video in which he went to Auschwitz. He claimed the Poles conducted a "fair experiment" in February 1999. Unless I'm mistaken, I'm fairly certain no report from that date exists.

[Hektor]

that Myles does not even cite the more recent "Krakow report" (Markiewicz et al. 1994) - see section:
8.3.2. Institute for Forensic Research, Krakow

He also seems to get the date wrong in the video in which he went to Auschwitz. He claimed the Poles conducted a "fair experiment" in February 1999. Unless I'm mistaken, I'm fairly certain no report from that date exists.

Making mistakes is one thing. But he doesn't bother to cite his sources correctly. So why should he be taken seriously to begin with.
He's also wrong to call a supposed investigation an 'experiment'. This isn't about scientific research (where you do experiments to establish causal relationships). It is historic or forensic research where you try to establish what has happened there.


From his twitter account:

"When I published my first blog post on Holocaust denial 5-years ago, I had no idea how big of a project it would turn into. This was due in part to revisionists moving the goalposts at every opportunity, but now I feel it's time to bring this project to a close."

+

"I have realised that nothing I ever publish will be good enough for them because, as I said they believe what they want to believe! This was never about historical accuracy or science."

@Myles
Perhaps that's because what you publish is indeed not good enough to be taken seriously by a person that has empirical evidence and rational conclusions as their goal post to decide whether something has to be accepted as truth. And you are merely projecting there. It's the Holocaustians that want others to believe what they want to believe. Accuracy hasn't mattered their right from the beginning. Make assertions, trick people with innuendo and emotional manipulation and then simply declare that the thesis (Holocaust) is true. If you disagree, than you are a 'denier'.

Why do you think you have to "debunk deniers" anyway? The question isn't whether the deniers and their arguments right or wrong. The question is whether the Holocaust Narrative is true or not. So all you'd have to do is to present the proof for the key assertions.
* Demonstrate that Jews were gassed in Auschwitz as alleged.
* Demonstrate that there was an extermination plan put into execution.
Both together should leave tremendous amounts of evidence that leads to a clear conclusion.
Instead of this one gets subterfuge and innuendo using circumstantial stuff that demonstrates deportation, internment, etc. stuff that isn't in dispute.

Here is how 'their proving' works:
Gather all kinds of items that seem useful for your hypothesis and then - while assuming that your hypothesis is true - interpret this in away that seeminlgy supports your hypothesis. Anything becomes "proof that" way.
* "They deported Jews" - That must be because they wanted to exterminate them.
* "There is Jews missing somehwere" - That must be because they were gassed.
* "They procured Zyklon B" - See, they were gassing the Jews.
* "They cremated bodies" - Ah, that proves the extermination program.

That there were deportation because the NS-government wanted to remove Jews from their sphere of influence doesn't come to their minds. Missing people don't prove that anything happened to them. They could simply have lived somewhere else and not trying to contact relatives, because they were made believe that they were "exterminated". Zyklon B was a delousing agent. You just turned measures to save lives into proof of genocide. Same actually applies to cremation.... And well, it was single corpse cremation equipment. The camp administration was actually offered equipment that could handle far more corpses efficiently. But they declined.

There is better explanation for any of the evidence being given. Yet Exterminationists decide to interpret anything in a way that makes it appear as if there is actually concise evidence for their hypothesis. When evidence is lacking, rescue devices are employed. Sorry Myles, that's how pseudoscience works. This is how people act that have a fixed paradigm in mind. If one approaches the evidences with an open mind one won't draw those conclusions at all. One would conclude that the Revisionist thesis is actually the best explanation for everything.

But there is political reaons not to do it. The charges of 'crimes agaisnt humanity' and 'exterminating all the Jews' are predominantly politically motivated. That's why the Allies send their psychological warfare units to the camps they found. And they were having a field day, after they bombed Germany into economic collapse, the conditions in the camps were conducive to starvation and disease. Being dishonest, they chose to blame the Germans for this, of course. So the Holocaust is not only a false thesis, it is malicious and disingenuous as well.

In the light of all available evidence, no honest, fair minded, objective, rational thinking person can accept the Holocaust as 'truth'. In fact honesty and decency would demand that it has to be rejected as malicious atrocity propaganda. Yet, it is forced down school children's throats as part of "Holocaust Education".

[Lamprecht]

that Myles does not even cite the more recent "Krakow report" (Markiewicz et al. 1994) - see section:
8.3.2. Institute for Forensic Research, Krakow

He also seems to get the date wrong in the video in which he went to Auschwitz. He claimed the Poles conducted a "fair experiment" in February 1999. Unless I'm mistaken, I'm fairly certain no report from that date exists.

Markiewicz died in 1997 so that's impossible. Maybe he's referring to a report by Green, or van Pelt? Or he's just being sloppy again.
In a previous video he even complained about having to buy Rudolf's book, which is funding "deniers."
Except it's free to download as a PDF!
He never mentions that, nor does he mention the video documentary of the same name by Rudolf.
Maybe he will mention these things in his upcoming video? We'll see.
What Myles appears to be doing is trying to make it seem like the only way to read the book is to order it, and that he has read it and discredited it by saying that Rudolf ignores all sorts of arguments while not actually addressing what he says in the book.
I guess if he's actually making a video responding to it, we'll see what how much of the book he actually shows. Given his recent article, it doesn't even seem like Myles has read the book.

[Otium]

What Myles appears to be doing is trying to make it seem like the only way to read the book is to order it, and that he has read it and discredited it by saying that Rudolf ignores all sorts of arguments while not actually addressing what he says in the book.
I guess if he's actually making a video responding to it, we'll see what how much of the book he actually shows. Given his recent article, it doesn't even seem like Myles has read the book.

It sure is convenient for him. He can avoid disseminating the book to people who are otherwise ignorant of the fact that it's freely available as a PDF, and he can also make the ridiculous insinuation that buying the book is some sort of scam or trap to fund revisionism as if buying books not available digitally for free is somehow not the norm. Complete nonsense.

Though I think in Myles' case actually buying a copy of the book works for a propaganda effect, so he can stick his little coloured markers in it to really make it seem like he not only read the book thoroughly, but is making unique, substantive, and holistic arguments which refute Germar. It may even be true that he's read the whole book but he will just lie about it anyway or simply avoid discussing the arguments in favour of cheap snipes. This isn't out of the ordinary, it's really quite shocking how often he has blatantly lied in the past and overlooked information for the sake of his dogmatic religious beliefs. I think we'd all be correct in assuming that he's just going to ape Germar's critics, particularly Richard Green and perhaps a few of the lesser known conspiracy theorists of recent years who've invented their own theories from whole cloth.