Myles Power - "Debunking Holocaust Denial" video series

[Hektor]

I made an indepth video response to his video on the Leuchter report

@6:00 "I don't know why you're showing this video, you're really reaching the bottom of the barrel..."

That's actually all the **ENTIRE VIDEO** is. The fact that he only focuses on the Leuchter report, and makes no mention of Germar Rudolf or his Rudolf report, proves the Myles character is full of crap.

Myles has shot himself in his own foot

They generally focus on some presumed weaknesses in the other sides arguments. That's if they don't stick to ad hominems and other fallacies.
If they were in an empirically and rationally strong position, they'd even ignore this and build a strong case for they thesis (They don't, they ignore forensic evidence almost completely). At the very least, they'd focus on the STRONG arguments and try to debunk them.

Myles alleges he focus on the strongest arguments, but that's obviously untrue, since he takes on the pioneering work of Fred Leuchter, while actually ignoring Germar Rudolf's work. There are of course many more arguments, some of them circumstantial, some stronger. But they altogether form a quite clear picture.

[Lamprecht]

Myles also brought up the old "it takes less cyanide to kill a human" canard.
Myles:

A lot of denialists out there say that this is the proof that no one was gassed in Auschwitz because in certain gas chambers they can't see this blue color. Now there are many reasons why we don't physically see it. First reason is that it takes not that much hydrogen cyanide to kill a human, about 300 parts per million as opposed to about 16 and a half thousand parts per million to kill insects and bugs that was happening these deal absent chambers so the concentration was a lot higher here. Another reason is because the high concentration of hydrogen cyanide in this room was here for a lot longer. It only took a couple of minutes to kill hundreds of people in one go but it took hours and hours and hours in rooms like this

This has been addressed here:
Green, Mathis refuted / cyanide: lice, humans, & more
viewtopic.php?t=267

Hannover gave a good summary:

Trtsk has brought this topic up again, so here it is. Comments invited.

more:

This assertion completely ignores the numbers of Jews allegedly gassed at one time in a large underground space and the alleged time lengths, which are said to have been mere minutes....all of which would have required massive amounts of Zyklon-B and necessitated vast amounts of cyanide residue, but not the case.

There is also a deceptive standard of measurement being used, not unusual for the so called "holocaust" Industry. I have listed some urls for info. and outlined some points, parts A. & B. ...read on.

A. quick points:

from Germar Rudolf, master chemist:

"the minimum amount of Zyklon B to be introduced in these rooms would have been in the order of magnitude of ten times the amount normally used for delousing procedures"

- This false argument, "it takes more cyanide to kill insects than it does humans, hence low HCN residue in the alleged gas chambers" is refuted by Germar Rudolf here:
http://archive.is/h444S

- Rudolf also destroys Robert Jan Van Pelt (fraudulent Auschwitz 'expert') and the false assertions about amounts of HCN found in the laughable, alleged 'gas chambers': http://www.vho.org/GB/c/GR/RudolfOnVanPelt.html

B. The argument is based on a false measurement standard, some points on that:

the false argument from:
http://www.nizkor.org/faqs/leuchter/leu ... aq-04.html

"But - HCN is far more effective on warm-blooded animals (including humans) than on insects, so the period of exposure to HCN is far longer for delousing clothes than that required for homicidal gassings, and a much lower concentration is necessary to kill people instead of insects.
A concentration of up to 16,000 ppm (parts per million) is sometimes used, with exposure times of up to 72 hours, to kill insects, but as little as 300 ppm will cause death in humans within fifteen minutes or so."

false argument exposed:
Two different measurement standards are being used, with the pretense there is only one measurement standard.
The measurement standard used for the HCN killing insects is the measurement for killing every single insect. In other words, if there are a thousand insects on a piece of cloth or room, the measurement is for killing every single one of those thousand insects.

With the measurement for humans, on the other hand, what's used is the measurement that can kill a single human being. This measurement is extremely low, because a small percentage of humans have a very low tolerance. In other words, if there were a thousand people in a room, that concentration could kill one person out of those thousand.

The toxicological literature gives two main threshold values of poisonous substances, from Rudolf - http://archive.is/h444S :

"The lethal dose 100%, LD100, which gives the concentration or quantity of poison required to kill all (100%) individuals of an observed species. This value is used to make sure that all individuals are successfully killed.
The lethal dose 1%, LD1, which gives the concentration or quantity of poison required to kill 1% of all individuals of an observed species. This value is used to mark a threshold beyond which an exposition to that poison is definitively dangerous."

The argument that a higher concentration of cyanide was needed to kill lice than humans is a canard, and now you can see how deceptive their argument is. They use two different measurement standards for humans and lice, but at 1st glance you think they are using the same standard.

- Hannover

(fixed a dead link)



See also:


Richard Green and the Toxicology of Auschwitz
viewtopic.php?t=7664

[Marley775]

Lamprecht,

Powers replied to your video saying that the walls were painted with a paint solution containing Prussian Blue... Lol. :

Prussian Blue is a pigment and is therefore used in paint. There is nothing unusual here, other than your implication that the nazis painted the walls purposefully to hide their crimes.

Even a 5 years old kid may ask him : "So why the entire walls are not covered by this alleged paint ?"

[Hannover]

Lamprecht,

Powers replied to your video saying that the walls were painted with a paint solution containing Prussian Blue... Lol. :

Prussian Blue is a pigment and is therefore used in paint. There is nothing unusual here, other than your implication that the nazis painted the walls purposefully to hide their crimes.

Even a 5 years old kid may ask him : "So why the entire walls are not covered by this alleged paint ?"

This Myles Power is certainly not very intelligent.

Painting the walls would simply 'lock' HCN into the mortar and concrete if HCN was present.

The laughable 'paint' argument came from liar & so called"eyewitness", Zionist, Daniel Bennahmias.
Check out his absurdities here and much more here:

Roberto Muehlenkamp & his Holocaust Industry say "eyewitness" Bennahmias is proof of 'holocaust' / Yes they do.
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11308

- Hannover

The tide is turning.

[Lamprecht]

Marley: I can not take credit for that video, It was posted (and I believe produced) by "Grimsithe"

Myles responded:

Hi! I would like to thank you for making this video. Unfortunately, I don’t have time to counter everything you say in it, but I would like to point out a few of the main issues I have with the video. Firstly, I make it very clear why I covered the Leuchter report - it was because I found it to be the strongest argument. I know this is subjective, but this is the reason why. You seem to be under the impression that the report I quoted, which proved definitively that hydrogen cyanide residue was found in the gas chambers, only tested for sodium cyanide. This is not the case - they extracted cyanide from the samples using an acid, and then used sodium hydroxide (lye solution) to make the cyanide sodium salts, which they then tested for. You also took issue with my statement that carbon dioxide inhibits Prussian blue synthesis, and asked for a reference. If you had read the report that I was referring to, and which you screen-captured, you would know this, as it has an entire section dedicated to it. Lastly, Prussian blue is a pigment, and is therefore used in paint. There is nothing unusual here, other than your implication that the nazis painted the walls purposefully to hide their crimes.

- He "found" the Leuchter report to be the "strongest argument"? LOL! So his next video will be on the Rudolf Report, then?

- Prussian blue can certainly be used in paints, but we understand how it can be produced by Zyclon-B. Is Myles saying that the prussian blue staining in the delousing chamber walls is due to paint, rather than Zyclon-B? Absurd!

- The Polish report specifically ignored iron-bound cyanides.

From:
Cyanide Chemistry at Auschwitz
viewtopic.php?t=4111

Indoor, sheltered walls: 2.7 ppm (n=7) Leuchter’s Data
Exposed, unsheltered walls 2.8 ppm (n=7)

AHGC [Alleged homicidal gas chamber] walls: 2.9 ± 2.4 ppm (n=6) Leuchter’s Data
Others: 2.6 ± 1.8 ppm (n=8)

AHGC walls 4.8 ± 3 ppm (n=3) Rudolf’s Data
Others: 0.7± 0.9 ppm (n=6)

De-lousing room, inside: 5670 ± 3900 ppm (n=9) Rudolf’s Data
outside: 3750 ± 3600 ppm (n=4) [7]

AHGC walls, Krema I: 0.07 ± 0.1 ppm (n=7) Markiewicz et al data
Krema II: 0.16 ± 0.2 ppm (n=7) [11]
Krema III: 0.03 ± 0.02 ppm (n=7)

Also:

From: http://vho.org/GB/c/GR/Fraudulent.html

As you can see, Leuchter & Rudolf found multiple times higher concentrations of cyanide reside. Because they included iron-bound cyanide in their analysis. The Polish report simply ignored these ferrocyanide compounds, which is why the levels they found are basically insignificant. Please see the previous posts on page 1 explaining this.

Myles is in damage-control

[JLAD Prove Me Wrong]

I'm surprised by the number of dislikes (4 likes vs 41 dislikes!). Usually almost anyone who watches revisionist/Irving videos is either a revisionist, or a revisionist sympathizer. Even orthodox holo-videos have become infiltrated by 'those pesky deniers', which is part of why the ADL is trying to censor YouTube. But for whatever reason, this video seems to be mostly viewed by 'believers'. I wonder why that is.

[Marley775]

Lamprecht says:

The Polish report specifically ignored iron-bound cyanides.

Not only they ignored iron-bound cyanides, but as Rudolf mentions in one of his book ("Auschwitz lies : Polish pseudo scientists" chapter) they used the Epstein method of analysis which is only reliable to detect the presence of cyanid in a low order of magnitude in a perfect liquid solution. Adding masonery samples to the the liquid does not produce a perfect liquid solution.

In other words, the 1994 expertise produced a fraudulent report.

[Hektor]

Lamprecht says:

The Polish report specifically ignored iron-bound cyanides.

Not only they ignored iron-bound cyanides, but as Rudolf mentions in one of his book ("Auschwitz lies : Polish pseudo scientists" chapter) they used the Epstein method of analysis which is only reliable to detect the presence of cyanid in a low order of magnitude in a perfect liquid solution. Adding masonery samples to the the liquid does not produce a perfect liquid solution.

In other words, the 1994 expertise produced a fraudulent report.

I think there were, among many others, also problems with the detection limits. The Poles gave 'measurements' below the detection limits for the method. Bear in mind that those people started their careers under a Communist Regime were science has to support the party line.

Apparently there is a good reason why this report has never been translated into German (I at least don't know of any German translation being ever published, although I recall some German Holocaust propagandist referring to it. ). And perhaps that is what should be done with the report. Translate it into German and send it to all experts in forensic and analytical chemistry. They can't dismiss this as 'Holocaust Denial', which is one obstacle less, but the pseudo-science in support of the Holocaust narrative will be detected by the relevant people. It may be the straw that breaks the camels back.


The work of the maker of the counter-video to Myles is laudable, but I think he already gave to many concessions to the Holocaust position. E.g. the argument that "It needs far less HCN to kill humans than to kill lice" citing safety literature on the one hand (for humans), while citing instruction manuals for killing lice on the other. Safety literature will keep such limits in a save bracket, hence low. It isn't an instruction manual for killing humans. A fumigation instruction manual naturally will use overkill amounts just to make sure that all bugs will be dead. But there is another problem. To quickly kill humans in a large room with Zyklon B, you'd have to make sure that deadly amounts of HCN are available even in the remotest spaces of that room. To achieve this you'd need quite a large amount of Zyklon B, since it takes time to have the HCN fully released. Now lets assume you have put enough Zyklon B into that room to achieve lethal amounts everywhere in that room within 5 minutes. The rest of the Zyklon B would then continue to release HCN into that room and one wouldn't be able to enter that room for a longer period. So the room would still be exposed to HCN for that longer period and I should add, the HCN amounts / concentrations would also be higher as well. That pretty much debunks the argument that far less Zyklon B would be used for homicidal gassings, at lower concentrations within a shorter period of time.

Who ever designed the Zyklon B for homicidal gassings-myth, he or they didn't sufficiently think that story through.

[Lamprecht]

The work of the maker of the counter-video to Myles is laudable, but I think he already gave to many concessions to the Holocaust position. E.g. the argument that "It needs far less HCN to kill humans than to kill lice" citing safety literature on the one hand (for humans), while citing instruction manuals for killing lice on the other. Safety literature will keep such limits in a save bracket, hence low. It isn't an instruction manual for killing humans. A fumigation instruction manual naturally will use overkill amounts just to make sure that all bugs will be dead. But there is another problem.

Yep. As pointed out previously, it is an inconsistent measure. It is comparing the amount of HCN to kill every insect, versus the amount needed to kill one person, while allegedly thousands were gassed at once.

Funny, someone in the comments actually said:

Zyklon B is a shitty delousing agent for Lice. Needs more of the stuff to kill lice than humans

That's literally what it was made for, to kill bugs!

EDIT:

By the way, this is the alleged homicidal gas chamber at Majdanek:


Revisionists claim that this was a delousing chamber, not a homicidal gas chamber. Note also that according to exterminationists, "Estimated 78,000" people were killed at Majdanek, and most were not killed in the gas chamber. Juergen Graf claims 42-50,000 people died at Majdanek, none from gassings. See:

On the Revision of the Number of Victims at Majdanek
https://codoh.com/library/document/965/


Yet the mainstream story says what, like 1 million people were gassed at Auschwitz?
So why are there blue stains on the alleged homicidal gas chamber of Majdanek, but not at Auschwitz? They can't keep their story straight!

[Grimsithe]

Hi, I am the original maker of the video and this is my first time posting on a forum.

The work of the maker of the counter-video to Myles is laudable, but I think he already gave to many concessions to the Holocaust position. E.g. the argument that "It needs far less HCN to kill humans than to kill lice" citing safety literature on the one hand (for humans), while citing instruction manuals for killing lice on the other. Safety literature will keep such limits in a save bracket, hence low. It isn't an instruction manual for killing humans. A fumigation instruction manual naturally will use overkill amounts just to make sure that all bugs will be dead. But there is another problem. To quickly kill humans in a large room with Zyklon B, you'd have to make sure that deadly amounts of HCN are available even in the remotest spaces of that room. To achieve this you'd need quite a large amount of Zyklon B, since it takes time to have the HCN fully released. Now lets assume you have put enough Zyklon B into that room to achieve lethal amounts everywhere in that room within 5 minutes. The rest of the Zyklon B would then continue to release HCN into that room and one wouldn't be able to enter that room for a longer period. So the room would still be exposed to HCN for that longer period and I should add, the HCN amounts / concentrations would also be higher as well. That pretty much debunks the argument that far less Zyklon B would be used for homicidal gassings, at lower concentrations within a shorter period of time.

I agree, that I conceded too many points, but I was trying to get something out fast, and I was already almost breaking an hour on time in the video too. Obviously there's a bunch more in the video that we could counter and go much more in depth.

Should I make a second video that goes more in depth into some of his other points and take back the concessions? We could get a list of points to counter about detection methods and of the like and throw it into another video or something.

Also I emailed Myles and he ended up watching the video and he commented the following:

Hi! I would like to thank you for making this video. Unfortunately, I don’t have time to counter everything you say in it, but I would like to point out a few of the main issues I have with the video. Firstly, I make it very clear why I covered the Leuchter report - it was because I found it to be the strongest argument. I know this is subjective, but this is the reason why. You seem to be under the impression that the report I quoted, which proved definitively that hydrogen cyanide residue was found in the gas chambers, only tested for sodium cyanide. This is not the case - they extracted cyanide from the samples using an acid, and then used sodium hydroxide (lye solution) to make the cyanide sodium salts, which they then tested for. You also took issue with my statement that carbon dioxide inhibits Prussian blue synthesis, and asked for a reference. If you had read the report that I was referring to, and which you screen-captured, you would know this, as it has an entire section dedicated to it. Lastly, Prussian blue is a pigment, and is therefore used in paint. There is nothing unusual here, other than your implication that the nazis painted the walls purposefully to hide their crimes.

To which I responded with

I want firstly to thank you for taking the time to respond and watch the video.

“Firstly, I make it very clear why I covered the Leuchter report - it was because I found it to be the strongest argument. I know this is subjective, but this is the reason why.”

But just to be clear you decided to debunk a report that has been attacked by holocaust revisionists themselves (as evident by the introduction of the report) when there’s much more newer, and more academically rigorous works out there made by actual Chemists (The Germar Rudolf Report)

2) “You seem to be under the impression that the [1994 Krakow] report I quoted, which proved definitively that hydrogen cyanide residue was found in the gas chambers, only tested for sodium [I believe you mean Potassium] cyanide. This is not the case - they extracted cyanide from the samples using an acid, and then used sodium hydroxide (lye solution) to make the cyanide sodium salts, which they then tested for. “

There’s seems to be a little wording issue here, so I’ll clear it up. They didn’t directly test for potassium cyanide in the 1994 report. They, as you rightly say, “extracted cyanide from the samples using an acid, and then used sodium hydroxide (lye solution) to make the cyanide sodium salts, which they then tested for.” But you seem to have forgotten a word. They didn’t just extract ‘cyanide’, in the words of the 94 report itself (emphasis my own) “we generated hydrogen cyanide by reacting POTASSIUM cyanide and sulfuric acid.” So they did not test directly for potassium cyanide, but rather used potassium as their main agent for testing for cyanide traces, and my critiques of this still apply.

3) “You also took issue with my statement that carbon dioxide inhibits Prussian blue synthesis, and asked for a reference. If you had read the report that I was referring to, and which you screen-captured, you would know this, as it has an entire section dedicated to it.”

The only times that the 94 report talks anything about Prussian blue is with regards to them saying they have no idea it can form on bricks (which you graciously explained to us in the original video), therefore paint must’ve been used on the delousing chambers. The entire section of the report that talks about Carbon Dioxide and human breathing doesn’t say ANYTHING about the formation of Prussian blue directly. It simply says that the test they did where they fumigated materials with HCN and carbon dioxide equivalent to a bunch of humans breathing, show that HCN remains in the materials longer than if there isn’t CO2 added. If anything, what this shows is that with more humans breathing HCN stays in the material for longer and thus has more time to react to form Prussian blue.

4) “Lastly, Prussian blue is a pigment, and is therefore used in paint. There is nothing unusual here, other than your implication that the nazis painted the walls purposefully to hide their crimes.”

I hope you realize you’re taking a new position that no one has taken before. Not only are you saying that you understand and you even demonstrated and explained for us so graciously in your original video about how Prussian blue forms, you are ALSO saying that the Nazis one day just got bored and said “Hey Hans how about we go and splatter Prussian blue dye all over these delousing chambers, on top of the blue dye that is already there”. It just makes no sense why the Nazis would have painted the delousing chambers with prussian blue including the outsides as well. There is no base for this whatsoever besides someone not understanding how HCN works and deducing that the only way for Prussian blue to occur is if someone made it and then applied to in a very awkward, haphazard manner. Also, I didn't imply the Nazis painted the walls to hide their crime, I had sarcastic captions..

[cold beer]

I made an indepth video response to his video on the Leuchter report

Very good

[Pia Kahn]

I made an indepth video response to his video on the Leuchter report

@6:00 "I don't know why you're showing this video, you're really reaching the bottom of the barrel..."

Well done. I am surprised that this video hasn't been censored by youtube and that Miles actually reacted in the comment section.

[Pia Kahn]

I made an indepth video response to his video on the Leuchter report

@6:00 "I don't know why you're showing this video, you're really reaching the bottom of the barrel..."

Oh, I would like to comment on the part, which deals with the pH level and carbon dioxide.

A pH level above 6 is necessary in order for the hydrogen cyanide to dissassociate into Hydrogen (H) and cyanide (CN). Carbon dioxide is always in the air and the process of carbonatation leads to the reduction of the pH level starting at the surface and slowly penetrating deeper into concrete. This process is called carbonatation and it essentially takes many months or even years for concrete to be completely neutralized.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonatation

Therefore, it is highly unlikely that the neutralization could have occurred within the time the people were in the gas chamber waiting to be gassed. And recall that a single gassing can leave visible traces of prussian blue - the church cases. Therefore, cyanide traces must be expected in the walls.

Oh well, anyhow these are my thoughts nevertheless a great job.

[Pia Kahn]

Oh, one last comment I like to make about the "sampling" method of Fred Leuchter.

1. Samples were taken by Germar Rudolf, whose sampling is not criticised. He basically came to the same analytical results.

2. If Leuchter's sampling method was such that no cyanides could be detected in the delousing chambers, then how was it possible for Leuchter to detect large quantities of cyanides in the homicidal gas chambers using the same sampling methods?

So this sampling bla bla is really grabbing for straws.

[flimflam]

Context :
Robert Jan Van Pelt and Deborah Dwork are well known holohoax scholars who wrote the book 'Auschwitz: 1270 to the Present' (2002) which is quoted below:

Zyklon B ... was the trade name of a cyanide-based pesticide invented in Germany in the early 1920s. It consisted of hydrogen cyanide (prussic acid), as well as a cautionary eye irritant ...

Uses included delousing clothing and fumigating ships, warehouses, and trains.

Zyklon-B was introduced into Auschwitz in July, 1940.....It was commonly used to fumigate lice infested buildings.

A violent typhus epidemic erupted in the summer of 1942 and the whole lice infested camps - barracks, offices, and workshops - had to fumigated with tons of Zyklon-B

Later that year Schacter developed primitive gas chambers in block 26 ... to fumigate prisoners clothing ..... Degesch engineers ... recommended the installation of many small heatable gas chambers to be used with tins of Zyklon-B

This is a drawing from the book showing the prisoners reception facility containing nineteen delousing chambers -
This is a photo of the Degesch machine for heating the pellets then distributing the gas and finally exhausting the gas -
The photo below is from Yad Vashem's The Auschwitz Album https://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/exhibitions/album_auschwitz/index.asp

The original caption (now accessible on the wayback machine) was

Women who were classified as "able-bodied for work" and whose heads had already been shaved, being sent to the women’s section of the camp known as BI. After the disinfection and registration process was complete, they were sent for long hours of back-breaking labor in different facilities in and out of the camp.

Zyklon-B was used in the camps for disinfection to prevent the spread of typhus to save lives, the claim that it was used to kill prisoners is preposterous.