VI. Germar Rudolf fools and accomplices of a fakeAre we at the end of our troubles? Have we seen all of Rudolf’s falsifications regarding the release from the HCN? The answer is negative. There remains the most enormous, the most «beautiful» of Germar Rudolf’s scientific frauds: the temperature.
Rudolf’s release kinetics (that is, the evaporation of HCN) are valid, he says, for temperatures above 20 degrees. Besides, not only is chemical kinetics very strongly influenced by temperature, which can be seen dramatically on the second Irmscher diagram that we reproduced above—Rudolf takes absolutely no account of it, as we have seen (an absolute scientific aberration) — but the boiling temperature of HCN is 26 oC. This means that from 26oC, the HCN behaves like boiling water and evaporates at very high speed, much higher than at lower temperatures, where this speed already seems extraordinarily fast. (contrary to what Rudolf tries to make people believe through falsifications).
It is here that the context of our study of the evaporation of hydrocyanic acid must be recalled: the mass murder by gassing human beings.
For a time, preheating had been planned for certain gas chambers. This can obviously only be explained by the desire to reach or even exceed the boiling temperature of hydrocyanic acid. However, this preheating was not implemented, because if hundreds of naked human beings, whose bodies are at least above 30 oC and the exhaled air at 37 oC, are forced to accumulate in a room where they will end up being crushed against each other by butts, the temperature increases rapidly, widely above 26 oC. Moreover, there are explicit testimonies stating that after having made the Jews enter the gas chamber, one waited, before pouring Zyklon B, for the temperature to be sufficiently high!
This means that in gas chambers, the cyanhydric acid of Zyklon B was exposed to temperatures significantly higher than its boiling point, and therefore evaporated extremely quickly, even faster than what Peters described, as boiling water! This is obviously passed over in silence, 'forgotten' by Germar Rudolf and makes all his quibbles about the evaporation rates of HCN ridiculous. No scientist worthy of the name would dare to neglect the question of temperature in a study relating to an evaporation problem! It would be like spending hours on the evaporation of water at 70oC to understand what happens when we heat it to 120oC! It is good because he is perfectly aware of it—he is not stupid — that Germar Rudolf commits this massive avoidance of the question of temperature. Germar Rudolf is simply, scientifically speaking, a lier.
However, do we really have any precise data on the rate of evaporation of the hydrocyanic acid from Zyklon B? It is clearly not on the side of the negationists that we need to look for them, as we will understand. Historians, they did their work...
Herbert Rauscher was a chemist at Heli, one of the companies specializing in the distribution of Zyklon B during the war. He gave a deposition after the war, in the context of the trial concerning the company Degesch, as a witness for the defence. He was a specialist in HCN and Zyklon B: he therefore mastered his subject. It is therefore not surprising that he provides precise figures for the evaporation rates of the HCN of Zyklon B at 20 degrees (so the speeds in real conditions, in gas chambers, are much faster). Herbert Rauscher provides a particularly interesting figure: at 20 C, 28% of the HCN is released in 5 minutes13. Herbert Rauscher provides information of extreme importance: the figures he puts forward are the result of measurements made during experiments; it is indeed a question here of the reality measured in the laboratory of the rate of evaporation of hydrocyanic acid from Zyklon B14, which explains the precision of the figure he provides.
One can then, obviously, calculate the coefficient k of the exponential evaporation law that we have already seen, the very hypothesis of Rudolf (k = 0.028533501). One can thus trace the curve and calculate the quantities released at 10 minutes, 30 minutes and 2 hours, respectively: 48%, 86%, 100%. You have read well. 48% in 10 minutes, five times more than the figure of 10% proposed without justification by Rudolf, and 86% in 30 minutes, quite the "largest part" of Peters. Once again, these are figures for 20 oC, below the boiling temperature. In a gas chamber, at temperatures above 2C, or very probably even higher than the boiling temperature, the release of hydrocyanic acid must have been lightning-fast, which is obviously confirmed by testimonies.
We are decidedly very far from Rudolf’s flights of fancy. It is then interesting here to compare two of the main curves corresponding to the figures proposed by Rudolf (50% in 30 minutes and 10% in 10 minutes) with the curve corresponding to a data finally real:
(graph)
In summary, it is a festival: Germar Rudolf relies on a vague letter, which he does not quote, to arbitrarily choose a point and then deduce a curve of which he does not justify the shape, advances figures that contradict this curve (10% in 10 minutes, 50% in 30 minutes) and in contradiction between them, not hesitating to falsify a document from 1933 (Peters) to justify one of these figures, abandoning this first falsification to resort to it (by making self-revisionism according to the successive versions of his report) to a second document that he nevertheless, scientifically has no right to invoke, to justify this same figure, while systematically neglecting the most important factor: temperature. All this to outrageously minimize the evaporation rate of hydrocyanic acid in contradiction with the documents issued by experts. Enough to fire any student in any subject from any university! Rudolf is not a scientist, he is a clown.
It’s not over.
The next part is the conclusion but it's don't bring anything about the debate so i will not translate itLet us remember that Germar Rudolf claimed (p. 59) to have two sources. We have seen what the letter of the Detia Freyberg was and «incidentally», how Rudolf treated contemporary documents and science itself. We will now see what the situation is with the second source. Let’s fully quote here what Germar Rudolf writes:
'The information from the second source [168], which comes from the US-Army Chemical Corps, is reproduced in Graph 12. Unfortunately, the source says nothing about the nature of the medium nor about how the product was spread/stacked. At an ambient temperature of about 26 oC, which is the boiling point of hydrocyanic acid, it takes about 9 hours, according to this source, for 80-90% of the hydrocyanic acid to be evaporated» (p. 59)
And here is the «graph 12» of which it accompanies this text, «from the US-Army Chemical Corps»:
(several graph)
Let us now cite the note [168] providing the reference of this graph 'emanating from the US-Army Chemical Corps':
'[168] S. Pinter, Mauthausen-Bericht, © 3/US-Army Chemical Corps, 5.8. '48.' (p. 114)
A first remark about this source: it is strange that a report emanating from the American army is entitled «Bericht» («rapport» in German, and not «report» in English). Stranger is the total absence of archival origin, dimension or precision that would allow us to trace this source. Between an unquoted (and lost) letter and an unverifiable report, Rudolf decidedly takes care of the reliability of his sources...
But before returning to this source, let’s examine the quantitative data. Remember that the reality of the evaporation rate of hydrocyanic acid at 20 C is 28% in 5 minutes, 86% in 30 minutes, 98% in one hour, quantities consistent with the Peters document from 1933 falsified by Rudolf. Here, at 25 C, in 30 minutes, only 6% of HCN would have evaporated! Germar Rudolf produces a diagram that shows figures at least 8 times lower than the reality. Even close to the boiling temperature, the figures provided divide reality at 20 C by 3. It’s all nonsense.
It is obvious that Germar Rudolf drinks whey to exhibit such incredibly slow evaporation rates. So incredibly slow that they are obviously incompatible with the letter from the Detia Freyberg or with the documents Peters and Irmscher, even in their fraudulent presentations by Rudolf! So incredibly slow that Germar Rudolf absolutely does not exploit these curves. He shows them, he is happy, but he does nothing about it and goes his way, the path of inconsistencies and falsifications that we described above, but in which this source does not participate.
Rudolf’s perceptible discomfort in the face of these exaggerations will prove to be more than justified. The name of the alleged author of the report in question would be "S. Pinter". One must be familiar with negationist speeches to recognize a minor negationist, the German-American Stephen F. Pinter. He counts a lot in the eyes of the deniers because this character is said to have participated between 1946 and 1948 as a jurist allied with various procedures against the Germans, notably at Dachau, and that in 1959 he wrote a letter to a local American newspaper, affirming that there had been no gas chambers at Dachau, where he had been stationed.
By Pinter’s own admission, he approached his missions in Europe with the aim of acquiring the most accused Germans. His statements about Dachau, contrary to physical reality, documentation and witness testimony,16 obviously demonstrate that he was either an execrable observer or a purely dishonest character, that his pro-German bias led him to lie. This is not surprising: Franz Sephan Pinter, born in Austria in 1888, is very probably the author, under the name of Hester Warwick, of a very long letter (as long as an article) denying the Holocaust, published in German in the Nazi magazine Der Weg in 195417 in Argentina, where many Nazi executives were present at the time. This letter deployed untruths that have become classic in the negationist arsenal. Der Weg was also used as a 'source' by the negationist Paul Rassinier.
The pedigree of the alleged perpetrator, the absence of any archival information on the provenance of this «Mauthausen Bericht» would be enough to cast doubt on its reliability. It gets a bit more intense when we learn that the information about Stephen F. Pinter having been at the head of a commission allied to Mauthausen comes from Emil Lachout, an old neo-Nazi and negationist who made fake ones, by incidentally lying about his biography, at the end of the 1980s in Germany. Now, what would we learn in 2004, at the deepest depths of a confidential negationist publication? Germar Rudolf held his graph «emanating from the US-Army Chemical Corps» of... Emil Lachout! The nail in the coffin of this hoax was provided by Stephen F. Pinter in person and in advance, since 1974. He then confided to a correspondent: «I had nothing to do with Mauthausen»! Is it useful to add that there is obviously no trace of an allied commission on Mathausen in 1948? Yes. In fine, it is even obvious that Stephen F. Pinter is not the author of any «Mauthausen Bericht». It was anyway a very bad choice from Emil Lachout...
the fact that Rudolf did not reveal from the start the origin of his diagram proves both his dishonesty and the fact that he did not completely believe in its authenticity, while being unable to resist the urge to present, even if it means not really exploiting them, «data» also in accordance (although particularly outrageous) with the direction of its own falsifications.
Rudolf seems to have understood quite early the really too doubtful character of his diagram: it indeed disappears very quickly from the successive editions of the «Rudolf Report». This "disappearance" was obviously not the subject of any comment from Rudolf, whose revelation he received from Lachout comes more than 12 years after its first publication. A rather comical manifestation of Germar Rudolf’s panicked yet discreet retropedalism is to be found in the web/pdf edition of one of his countless publications, here a collection from 1993, written under pseudonym and pompously entitled «Lessons on contemporary history». In the third lesson, a "causerie" on the "physico-chemical" aspects of Auschwitz, Rudolf deploys his usual falsifications. The paper version reproduced the Pinter-Lachout diagram (without saying its origin). The web/pdf version has replaced the diagram with the following comment: "Da die Daten dieser Grafik unfundiert und irreführend sind, wird sie hier nicht dargestellt», namely 'Given the misleading and groundless nature of the data in this graph, it is not reproduced'. Re-ouch. Should we stick the knife in the wound by mentioning that Rudolf repeats his lie about Gerhard Peters there?
Beyond the fraudulent nature of this diagram, one can however notice that it proposes evaporation curve shapes quite coherent with an exponential law, which we think is a reasonable hypothesis. Above all, beyond the delirious durations it offers, there is an interesting piece of information that we already know: the influence of temperature on the evaporation rate. It is particularly noted that above 25 oC (above the boiling temperature?) the evaporation speed is twice as fast as the speed at 25 oC! This is obviously in line with what we were saying above. Besides, this evidence cannot have escaped Germar Rudolf who made the choice to ignore it completely because that, as we pointed out, renders inadmissible all his «reasonings», which silence the temperature factor.
It’s time to wonder what part of truth there could be in these diagrams. Emil Lachout is known to have probably been in possession of authentic documents. But those he made public were altered in order to corroborate the negationist discourse. Could it be that he started from real data to make a diagram visibly «slow»? Germar Rudolf provides us, probably unintentionally, with a lead. In the letter of 2004 by Germar Rudolf, quoted above, excerpt from a confidential negationist publication, he wrote: «Probably by mistake [sic], the evaporation times presented in the diagram are ten times longer than reality». If this is the essence of Rudolf’s thought, what did he say in later versions of his report and exploit the diagram rid of this error? Here is why: (graph)
We have done what Rudolf recommends: divide the durations by ten. We can then make two observations. Finally, there is a curve that corroborates Rudolf’s famous statement, '50 % in 30 minutes': it is the evaporation curve at 25 C (note that this still does not corroborate, of course, '10 % in 10 minutes'). It is nevertheless curious that Rudolf did not wish to use such data. Or not. Because the second observation, spectacular, is the evaporation rate above 25C: very fast. 20% in 5 minutes, 40% in ten minutes, 94% in 30 minutes («the largest part»...). Rudolf cannot afford to publicize such a possibility, stressing the importance of the temperature that he must absolutely overlook to promote his falsified assessment of 10% in 10 minutes. Note that reality (the 1922 patent, Peters & Rauscher) indicates faster evaporation rates than this corrected version of the Rudolf-Lachout-Pinter graph. Last thought experiment as anecdotal as it is edifying (and honestly far-fetched): if we apply to the real data available at 20oC (28% in 5 minutes, 48% in 10 minutes) the observed ratio (on the Lachout-Pinter curve corrected by Rudolf) double for temperatures above the boiling temperature, we obtain... 56% in 5 minutes and 96% in 10 minutes...
It is clear that in reality this diagram is unusable. But Rudolf, while knowing its origin and doubtful character, began by using it and when he gives up, he still thinks that it corresponds to a reality (it is enough to divide the durations by ten), but as in this case, the corrected diagram provides a curve quite contrary to the falsified figures he advances, Rudolf hides the object of the package and falsifies other sources. After having been fooled and complicit by a counterfeiter, Rudolf falls back into the most anti-scientific bad faith. All this is simply risible
