Myles begins his video with his assertion that most "conspiracy theories" come from a "good place" but not Revisionism, which can only come from a very 'dark place'.
Obviously, Myles does not realize the irony in his claim that it is Revisionism---and not the "Holocaust", itself--- which is the original conspiracy theory.
He focuses on what he deems the 'character' of the book, rather than it's arguments:
This is a really bad book.
His introduction includes the following:
Over the past five years, I've been countering what I consider to be the strongest arguments made by Holocaust deniers, that the Holocaust never happened. And I've done it without really breaking a sweat, to be honest with you, but I have not yet refuted Germar Rudolf's book, 'The Chemistry of Auschwitz', leading many online to believe that I'm unable to do so and that, therefore, somehow, the Nazis didn't systematically kill millions of people in their death camps. The truth, however, is that I simply don't like being told what to do and have been, rather childishly, standing back and watching with glee as Revisionists online claim victory, saying that this book was just too much for me, "just too much for you Myles, you silly, silly fool, you"; well, no, no it's not. And I think it's about time that we bring this project to an end.
More from Myles on the purported character of the book:
...an awful book...
...an excruciatingly difficult read...
...jarring tonal changes indicating that Germar no longer believes in the vast majority of arguments he made when he first published this book... decided not to take these mistakes out; instead, he has edited out his endorsement of these arguments but left the arguments and "evidence" or what have you still intact in the book...
...you don't know if he believes in what he's writing down...
Almost four minutes in, Myles finally gets to the actual contents of the book... sort of. Myles is, for some reason, referencing much older editions of the "Rudolf Report". If Myles is truly attempting to combat "the strongest arguments made by Holocaust deniers", as he claims, why would he focus so much on expired editions of the book he's attempting to refute? Very strange.
Around 3:52, Myles points out an early argument from Rudolf regarding alleged 'chamber' doors which were not gastight so could not operate as a gas chamber. Aside from the fact that the doors still claimed today to have been used for 'gassing' (e.g. those for Krema II, III, IV; or in other camps) were also not gastight, Myles focuses on the door to Auschwitz I, which Rudolf addresses in old and new editions of his book (Fig. 6 older version, vs Fig. 11 current version). The change was in the caption of these "Fig.s" from "[door to] an alleged National socialist gas chamber", to "[door] which has been presented for decades to museum visitors as a homicidal gas chamber". What happened here is that Germar simply updated his work to reflect and clarify that establishment historians do not generally refer to this (Auschwitz I) as a gas chamber. Germar still acknowledges, however, that the prestigious Auschwitz Museum did, in fact, claim so for decades, misleading many thousands of museum visitors throughout that time. Rudolf also indicates here (accurately) that this discovery related to the Auschwitz I door originated in Leuchter's report.
Myles continues:
Germar is really struggling to pin down who his target audience is... there are large sections written in a dry and scientific manner... this is punctuated by a writing style I can only describe as a teenager in the early 2000s... it just doesn't really fit with the whole "feel" of the book.
How is ANY of this relevant to the key points or main thesis of the book? Has Myles lost his mind completely? More of the same:
...neutered by the multiple revisions...
...overly bloated...
...difficult read...
Myles claims that Rudolf's work is "identical to the Leuchter report". He claims this based on his observation that:
- Both Leuchter and Rudolf went to Auschwitz
- They "illegally" obtained samples
- They "smuggled" them out of the country
- They got them tested "rather dodgily"
To each of the above, respectively:
- Yes, Myles, they both went to Auschwitz, since we are talking about Auschwitz. Lol.
- Ah, it was illegal to investigate, so the investigation doesn't "count".
- They "smuggled" them out! It was a big 'heist'! They committed CRIMES (or not)... and this criticism has nothing to do with the scientific method.
- How on Earth does Myles make the claim that Rudolf recording himself collecting, bagging, and cataloguing these samples; then sending them to an accredited, scientific laboratory for an accurate and unbiased, independent analysis count as "dodgy"? Would he have preferred that Germar label the samples as "ILLEGAL HOLOCAUST DENIAL SAMPLES" before sending them in, just to ensure the laboratory has a chance to deny testing them (or skew the results)?
Ah, but here is the "main course" of Myles' argument as made in the current video:
[Rudolf and Leuchter did not] prove Prussian blues can be formed in the conditions found in the homicidal gas chambers.
This is a beautiful opportunity for anyone new to Revisionist research to take a moment and see just how utterly VOID the case is for those defending homicidal 'gassings'. First of all, the mortar samples collected by Rudolf show non-incriminating, trace amounts of FeCN (Prussian blue) in all areas (including inmate barracks as well as the alleged 'gas chambers'; note that NOBODY claims 'gassing' occurred in inmate barracks) due to cyanide fumigation efforts throughout the camp. Thus, it is 100% clear that Prussian blue could indeed form. Secondly, Rudolf meticulously (and exhaustively) details precisely how the formation of Prussian blue occurs (see chapters 1 and 6 of TCOA, here:
https://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/02-tcoa.pdf), along with examples throughout, demonstrating beyond any REASONABLE doubt that conditions were not only present but perhaps even OPTIMAL for the formation of FeCN (see p. 203, Ibid). No one--neither expert nor layman--has been able to challenge the overwhelming evidence provided which demonstrates this. Because determining what is "optimal" requires an understanding of many variables, one must become familiar with the evidence to affirm or deny this case (point-by-point for each condition of formation), hence why reading the above-linked chapters of TCOA is strongly recommended.
Myles also shifts the burden of proof, here. It was not upon Revisionists to prove FeCN could form, it was upon the establishment to have already done the analyses instead conducted by Rudolf/Leuchter/Ball/etc. and confirm that, in fact, FeCN could NOT have formed (i.e. to explain why we find no incriminating levels of FeCN in the 'chambers'). They didn't do this work, simply because what ACTUALLY happened was never a concern of theirs---they had a narrative to implement. Any proper investigation could only have impeded that effort.
Next, Myles goes on to cite a French paper from one Gilles Karmasyn. Myles describes one argument made by Karmasyn--about Rudolf making calculations based on a "single figure"--but leaves out Karmasyn's apparent acknowledgement in a recent postscript to the same article that any oversight regarding said figure had been corrected. Myles also leaves out Karmasyn's numerous falsehoods and misrepresentations. The Karmasyn paper addressed/debunked here:
viewtopic.php?t=13396#p106356Myles claims Rudolf "ignored the importance of temperature", and that this was how he came to his conclusions. This is blatantly false. Whoever needs confirmation that Myles is either a flat-out liar or has committed a serious oversight need only read through pages 236-240 of TCOA, again linked here:
https://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/02-tcoa.pdfHe mentions cyanide found by the Krakow Institute circa 1945 in various places at Auschwitz, as though this is proof of 'gassing'. He does not mention here that the AMOUNT of cyanide was never tested, nor does he acknowledge the fact that virtually the ENTIRE camp had been 'deloused' (with cyanide) due to the greatest typhus-lice epidemic the world had ever seen, razing its way across Europe (and particularly in concentration camps) during the war. Myles mentions cyanide (free-form, or CN) also being found in human hair but fails to mention that this hair was typically cut as inmates entered the camp as a life-saving measure to prevent typhus. The piles of (often lice-infested) hair no doubt then had to be fumigated to prevent colonies of lice from further developing therein.
Myles continues literally waving the book in front of the camera, stuttering out of frustration, obviously realizing he has failed to provide a compelling argument. He restates the claim that "[FeCN is not proven to be] formed in the conditions found in the homicidal gas chambers." This is a blatant cop-out, which is exactly what everyone expected from Myles in his rebuttal to this work. When you are dealing with a question of "the optimal conditions for the formation of _____", it is a case which has to be made inductively. Rudolf shows beyond reasonable doubt that these conditions were present. He cites the literature for each condition which is conducive to the formation of this compound; he cites the best evidence available for what the conditions were (or were said to be, by top witnesses) within the alleged 'chambers'. Based on this information (which is the best available to anyone), his conclusions are entirely valid.
NO ONE has been able to challenge this. Least of all, Myles.
Not only is Rudolf's "The Chemistry of Auschwitz" among the most comprehensive studies of the formation of FeCN anywhere, but this same work can be said to be
the most authoritative forensic analysis of ANY alleged homicidal 'gas chamber'. No establishment 'expert' has ever come close.
Myles wraps-up his gigantic failure with a short speech about the 'Holocaust' in general, near the end of his video. He says:
We have so much evidence that this [Holocaust] took place, and they're ignoring it. We have millions of people missing. We have pictures from when these facilities actually operated as extermination camps. We have witness testimony. And we have testimony from people who actually worked at the camps.
Consider the following:
- The question of people 'missing' must include: who, exactly, is missing? Were they killed? There were thousands of concentration and labor camps within the German network across Europe during WW2 which Jews transited between. Tragically, no care was taken to keep families together throughout this time. Post-war, Jews seldom returned 'home'. They scattered to 60+ countries---at a time with no internet---most often assuming all their relatives were 'gassed', never to be found. They lived out their lives reporting, "I lost my whole family...", which may have been true, just perhaps not how they meant it to be. As far as census data goes, this was extremely problematic for more reasons than can be addressed here, but consider the following:
- Pages 175-206:
https://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/01-dth.pdf -
Simple question: What happened to the people who were sent to the camps? / 'Where did they go?'- It is unclear what "pictures" Myles is talking about here but there are two things which he will likely omit: the necessary context to the photos and the fact that propagandists were actively building false narratives within the camp system. Photos which show naked people, for example, may disregard life-saving delousing measures, instead featuring a caption such as, "people waiting to be gassed". Other photos may show things such as open-air cremation (note: cremation was the standard method for disease-control) without explaining why or when the photo was taken, or with what intention. A small number of less-significant photos are shown to be outright forgeries.
- Myles points out that we have witness testimony without acknowledging the EXTRAORDINARY range of testimony that exists, ranging from the almost-believable to the absolutely preposterous. Some examples, here (a list that is far from exhaustive):
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7033- Myles points out that some of the SS (or other camp staff), themselves, 'admitted' to what happened. But we know, overwhelmingly, that these statements were coerced in what was known as having been essentially show-trials (the Nuremberg trials have gained this reputation, even among many supporters of the Holocaust narrative). See here regarding SS testimony:
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8165&start=15Immediately following the above statements, Myles cites a BOGUS quote from Oskar Groening; or, rather, I should say, an "enhanced" quote, suggesting that Groening had admitted to the 'gas chambers'. It's debunked, here:
https://codoh.com/library/document/how- ... nvents/en/And here:
viewtopic.php?t=7622And here (addressed at this forum 17 years ago!):
viewtopic.php?t=1624Myles rambles on further about how Germar [supposedly] ignored "mountains" of other evidence about the Holocaust. Apparently, he isn't aware of Germar's many other works on the subject of the Holocaust, where he addresses in-detail these "mountains"; available for free as PDFs, here:
https://holocausthandbooks.com/Myles says, "nothing I publish will be good enough for these people." Funny, this is the exact kind of thing that a person who is CLEARLY losing an argument waves their hand with, as a pseudo-dignified (dishonest) exit. Myles is, indeed, quite like a child.
