Myles Power - "Debunking Holocaust Denial" video series

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1263
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: Myles Power - "Debunking Holocaust Denial" video series

Postby Lamprecht » 6 months 1 week ago (Sun May 12, 2019 9:24 am)

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


You spoke too soon!

Certain features have been disabled for this video

In response to user reports, we have disabled some features, such as comments, sharing, and suggested videos, because this video contains content that may be inappropriate or offensive to some audiences.


I suggest Grimsithe posts a link to this thread in the video description, saying it can be discussed without censorship here :D
"There is a principal which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principal is contempt prior to investigation."
-- Herbert Spencer

Grimsithe
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2015 10:31 am

Re: Myles Power - "Debunking Holocaust Denial" video series

Postby Grimsithe » 6 months 1 week ago (Mon May 13, 2019 9:56 pm)

Hey guys, so I emailed Myles my response to his critiques and this is the response that he sent back to me.

If you are going to take the time to make a 50min long video, the least I can do is watch it. Sorry to hear that your video was not deemed appropriate. The same thing happened to my videos on the subject, but after I complained, YouTube put them back up. What I am about to say may sound insulting, but it’s not meant to be. You need to sit down with someone who has a basic knowledge of chemistry, or a general scientific background, to go through this report together because, quite frankly, you are not getting the basics. First of all, no I don’t mean potassium, and I presumed you accidentally mixed up your metals, which is why I did not pay any attention to it. As I said in my comment, they extracted the cyanide using an acid and then made the sodium salt, after which they then tested for. The study does reference a previous investigation where they made the potassium cyanide salts, but we are not talking about that report here. You are completely getting your wires crossed when you quote the report, as the section you are quoting is how they generated hydrogen cyanide to test its effect on the bricks and mortar. Your quote spelt it out for you “we generated hydrogen cyanide by reacting POTASSIUM cyanide and sulfuric acid.” I dont know how you read this and came to the conclusion that potassium is “main agent for testing for cyanide traces” and no, your critiques of this do not still apply. Sorry to sound like a dick, but this is basic acid + base stuff that you learn when you are a child. “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. “

This is not at all backed up in the paper, which says…. "In this case the CN- content in mortar (old and fresh) and in new brick was for the most part lower in the wetted materials than in the dry ones. It seems that here a tendency is revealed towards the competitive action of carbon dioxide, which dissolves in water" And “Therefore, the conditions for the preservation of HCN in the gas chambers were not better than in the delousing chambers, despite what the revisionists claim.” Your last point isn’t even worth addressing because I think my original point is missed on you. I think you completely missed the mark and, like I said at the beginning, would advise that you go through the paper with a chemist to make sure in the future you don’t make similar mistakes. Once again, sorry to sound like a dick, but I find your response quite funny, and am going to share it on social media. BW Myles

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3362
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: Myles Power - "Debunking Holocaust Denial" video series

Postby Hektor » 6 months 1 week ago (Tue May 14, 2019 4:00 am)

I think there were tests done with the behavior of HCN under conditions of higher CO2 levels and they don't support Myles's assertion. Quite to the contrary. At least they are at a point were they don't deny the discrepancy in Iron Blue manifestations. All they do is to grasp for excuses, why it isn't found in what they allege were homicidal gas chambers.

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1263
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: Myles Power - "Debunking Holocaust Denial" video series

Postby Lamprecht » 6 months 1 week ago (Tue May 14, 2019 8:17 am)

Simple fact is that the Polish report ignored iron bound cyanide. I posted a table on page 2 comparing the cyanide amounts found by Leuchter, Rudolf, and the Poles.

Myles thinks the blue staining is due to paint. This is totally absurd.
"There is a principal which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principal is contempt prior to investigation."
-- Herbert Spencer

Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1093
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Myles Power - "Debunking Holocaust Denial" video series

Postby Werd » 6 months 1 week ago (Tue May 14, 2019 8:35 am)

From THE CHEMISTRY OF AUSCHWITZ video, look at what Rudolf said about Markiewicz and the rest of those Polish frauds.

https://codoh.com/library/document/4730/
The situation is different when it comes to samples taken from former fumigation chambers. Only three of the four individuals who took samples agree on the range of cyanide contents. All samples that these three samplers had taken had readings of at least a gram of cyanide per kilogram of sample material. This means that at least 0.1% of the samples consisted of cyanide, something we would expect of a sample taken from walls exhibiting a patchy blue discoloration caused by Zyklon-B fumigations. The third set of samples taken from various Auschwitz fumigation chambers and analyzed by Markiewicz and colleagues, however, didn’t result in any significant cyanide readings at all.

The reason for that is simple: Dr. Jan Markiewicz, here a portrait from the 1960s, had been commissioned by the Polish State Museum at Auschwitz, thus by the Polish government itself. Markiewicz himself was an employee of the Jan-Sehn-Institute for Forensic Research, which is run by the Polish government’s department of justice. Since denying the Auschwitz gas chambers is a crime in Poland, Markiewicz must have been under massive pressure to somehow conclude that the cyanide readings from the claimed homicidal gas chambers resemble those of fumigation chambers. To produce those results, he chose an analytic method which by design was unable to detect any Prussian Blue and similar long-term-stable iron cyanide compounds. Here is his 1994 publication of his rigged results.[54] As a reason why he excluded all Prussian Blue from the analysis, he stated that he did not understand how Prussian Blue could possibly form in masonry as a result of Zyklon B gassings. Quote:

“It is hard to imagine the chemical reactions and physicochemical processes that could have led to the formation of Prussian Blue in that place.” – (p. 20)

Referring to a paper by an Austrian chemist, Markiewicz then stated, quote “that the formation of Prussian blue in bricks is simply improbable,” and that the blue discoloration could instead be the result of blue wall paint (ibid.). While such a hypothesis is certainly permissible, ignoring arguments to the contrary certainly is not. But that is exactly what Markiewicz and his colleagues subsequently did. Here is what they quoted in their paper in footnote 4 on the last page (p. 27): Ernst Gauss, which used to be a pen name of mine, Vorlesungen über Zeitgeschichte,[55] which means Lectures on Contemporary History. This book is the German predecessor of the currently available book Lectures on the Holocaust.[56] Its first edition was published in early 1993. In it, I explained with the same arguments as presented here, and supported by the same sources of expert literature, how Prussian Blue can form in masonry after exposure to hydrogen cyanide, and which factors are favorable. Although he quoted the book, Markiewicz ignored those arguments completely. That book also addressed specifically the many deficiencies and fallacies of the Austrian paper quoted by Markiewicz, in particular the demonstrably false hypothesis that the blue discoloration of the Auschwitz, Stutthof and Majdanek fumigation walls could be the results of blue wall paint. Specifically, we read on page 292, quote:

“These cyanide readings can be found not only on the wall’s surface, as would have to be expected in the case of wall paint, but also deep inside the wall and on the outside of the masonry, and also on the bricks. Furthermore, the blue discoloration resembles anything else but a typical coat of paint; in fact, the patchy pattern also proves that the Prussian Blue originated from fumigation gassings.”

There are actually many more arguments clearly showing that the wall-paint hypothesis is nothing more than a red herring conjured up to conceal a fraud:[57]

First, Iron Blue as such is not even sold as wall paint at all, since it lacks sufficiently high lime fastness. It is offered only as a mixture with other blue pigments. But there is no trace of any other blue pigment on these walls.

Second, if this argument were correct, it would be remarkable that the SS, of all the rooms in the concentration camps of the Third Reich, would apply blue paint only to their disinfestation chambers where no one could admire it; and, strangely, always with the same blue: Auschwitz, Birkenau, Majdanek, Stutthof…. All other rooms were merely whitewashed at best.

Third, the disinfestation chambers themselves already had a coat of lime paint. Why would they cover this coat of lime paint with another paint which, in addition, is not even lime-fast? They would therefore have had to wait until the lime paint and plaster had set before one could (re‑)paint the walls. And then it would have been by no means certain that the paint would not furthermore have become stained as a result of chemical reactions.

Fourth, neither would a coat of paint on the inside of the room explain the absence of blue discolorations on the interior walls which were added to the disinfestation wing of Building 5a at a later time. It is striking that only such walls have blue stains which were exposed to hydrogen cyanide.
Fifth, the wall-paint argument is refuted by the fact that none of the colored walls shows any pattern of brush marks and also no identifiable coat of paint, since wall paint consists not only of pigment, but also of a considerable proportion of binding agents to hold the pigment in place and other chemicals. The blue pigment is, however, simply one component of the lime paint, plaster and mortar.

Sixth, the wall-paint argument furthermore fails to explain how the artistic skills of the painters could have succeeded in imitating the brick structure lying beneath the plaster. Such a pattern, however, is fully consistent with the accumulation of cyanides and the formation of Prussian Blue as a result of fumigations, because that depends on the wall’s humidity and temperature, which in turn depends on whether there is mortar or brick behind the plaster.

Seventh, the wall-paint argument does not explain the only-pale-blue tint of the interior south walls of the original disinfestation wing of Building 5a. This, too, can be explained by fumigation, because that interior wall was warmer and dryer than the exterior walls, hence less prone to form Prussian Blue.

Eighth, neither does this wall-paint argument explain the high cyanide content in the superficially white, iron-poor material of the walls of the disinfestation wing of Building 5b – unless one posits that these rooms were painted with an “iron white,” a wall paint that does not even exist. Here, too, the fumigation hypothesis has no trouble explaining this. Since the plaster in that building does not adhere firmly to the underlying wall, moisture cannot easily travel from the wall through the plaster into that room. Thus, accumulation processes on the plaster’s surface are impeded.

The Austrian paper quoted by Markiewicz and colleagues in order to prop up their auxiliary wall-paint hypothesis was published in this political pamphlet.[58] It was written by Josef Bailer and stands out by not having a single reference to any literature, chemical or otherwise, regarding the formation and stability of Prussian Blue, or any other cyanide chemistry, for that matter. In his first footnote, he excuses that fact by stating that his subsequent remarks – quote – “aren’t supposed to be a treatise on the chemistry of hydrogen cyanide” – unquote. How can any researcher take such a paper seriously in the first place that is devoid of any substantiated reasoning? Well, Markiewicz didn’t back up any of his claims with any references to chemical literature either, as can be seen from his meagre footnotes. So, I guess ignorant birds of the same feather flock together. And yet, these two vacuous papers serve as the linchpin for the orthodox musings on the chemistry of Auschwitz.

Anyway, after Markiewicz and his colleagues had picked an analytical method that wouldn’t find anything anywhere, no matter how hard they looked, they found that the readings of samples taken from fumigation chambers were similar – that is to say, non-existing – to those taken from claimed homicidal gas chambers. Hence, they concluded that the history of both groups of samples must also have been similar. So, because we know that Zyklon-B gassings took place on a grand scale in the fumigation chambers, they concluded that similar Zyklon-B gassings must also have taken place in the claimed homicidal gas chambers. And Bingo! The reality of homicidal gassings at Auschwitz had been confirmed! Because the absence of any evidence proves what needs to be demonstrated!

Good job!

So, how do you prove that a civilization exists on Mars? Well, first you take a detection device that cannot detect civilizations. Then you use it to measure the civilization existing on earth. Your device will show some value close to zero. Next, you train your instrument on Mars. Here, too, the instrument shows a value close to zero. Hence, you conclude that a civilization similar to ours must indeed exist on Mars, for the values measured in both cases are similar!

Of course, if you care to look, there would be a similar civilization “value” for the Moon, for Mercury, Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Uranus, and Pluto; for the sun, for Alpha Centaury, for the Andromeda Nebula, and wherever you train your smart device. Smart? Really?

There are people who take the Polish frauds around Jan Markiewicz seriously. Some don’t know better, because they simply trust quote-unquote “renowned” researchers, but others do know better, such as the Jewish-American chemist Dr. Richard Green. The psychology behind his persistent denial of reality is worth its own documentary, so I won’t dwell on it here.[59]

It goes without saying that the lack of any reproducible, reliable cyanide readings in wall samples taken from claimed homicidal gas chambers does not conclusively prove that no gassings took place there. After all, most premises fumigated with Zyklon B don’t exhibit such residues either, as I mentioned before. But then again, so do all buildings that were never exposed to the gas.

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1263
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: Myles Power - "Debunking Holocaust Denial" video series

Postby Lamprecht » 5 months 4 weeks ago (Thu May 23, 2019 6:00 pm)

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


Now when I click the video, it says it must be viewed on youtube. Youtube gives me a " The following content has been identified by the YouTube community as inappropriate or offensive to some audiences." message
there is a button that says "I UNDERSTAND AND WISH TO PROCEED"
but when I click the button, nothing happens

I suggest uploading it to bitchute, or archive.org: https://help.archive.org/hc/en-us/artic ... asic-Guide
"There is a principal which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principal is contempt prior to investigation."
-- Herbert Spencer

EtienneSC
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 510
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 2:27 pm

Re: Myles Power - "Debunking Holocaust Denial" video series

Postby EtienneSC » 5 months 4 weeks ago (Fri May 24, 2019 8:32 am)

I get a notice "This video is not available on your country domain." I also suggest Bit-chute, where the censorship is lighter.

georgesmiley
Member
Member
Posts: 46
Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2013 1:44 pm

Re: Myles Power - "Debunking Holocaust Denial" video series

Postby georgesmiley » 5 months 3 weeks ago (Sun May 26, 2019 8:25 am)

For those getting a message saying that Grimsithe's video is not available in your country domain, here is a work around.

In Youtube settings change your location to United States - this worked for me


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] and 5 guests