Gilles Karmasyn critique of Rudolf

[Monsieur Sceptique]

Let me introduce myself, I am a former member of the old forum. (I had posted on the old codoh forum before the cyber attack took it offline) and I am a young French historian who considers himself to be as neutral as possible and who wants through debate to arrive at the truth regardless of which side. I am sorry if I make mistakes in my messages because I need to find the habits again. I would therefore like to contribute to this thread by quoting an article from PHDN on the work of Germar Rudolf, everyone will be free to respond to this article and draw their conclusion.

the article in question is named in French L’incompétence scientifique et les falsifications de Germar Rudolf A propos de l'évaporation de l'acide cyanhydrique du Zyklon B which could be translated as The scientific incompetence and the falsifications of Germar Rudolf About the evaporation of hydrocyanic acid from Zyklon B. The link to this article is there

https://phdn.org/negation/rudolf/rudolf ... tml#note29

Gilles Karmasyn in this article seems to prove that Mr. Germar Ruddolf intentionally falsified or showed incompetence scientist in the demonstration in his book "THE CHEMISTRY OF AUSCHWITZ". I will therefore be the voice of his article and bring the different rebuttals he brings to Germar Ruddolf’s book. On page 237 of Germar Rudolf’s book, Germar Rudolf cites Irmscher to establish his graph except that he misquotes Irmscher. The proof is as follows: Irmscher says in page 36 of his work Once More: The Efficiency of Prussic Acid at Low Temperatures he say
The previously noted quantities of Zyklon for the various experiments were cooled to the foreseen temperature for the experiment. As absorption material paper disks were used in one case, in another case erco cubes (highly porous gypsum material), that is the two most often used carrier materials in the implementation of prussic acid gassing. In order to get an overview of the entire temperature range, the experiments were carried out in the same order at -18° C, -6° C, 0° C, and +15° C. In any event the calculation of relationships could not be made using this procedure in cases in which the humidity in the room is high thereby depositing upon the evaporating surfaces water or snow (depending upon the temperature) which significantly diminish the rate of evaporation.
There is the link of the article

https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... 036.htm.en

Moreover, this is not the only time that Rudolf would have misquoted. In his article, Gilles talks about Gerhard Peters and how he (Germar) falsified his quote. To quote Gilles, he says that Rudolf falsified Gerhard Peters and attributed to him the fact that I am quoting 'G. Peters[152] gives a release of 50% hydrogen cyanide in 1/2 hour [...]. This is roughly consistent with the evolution data provided by the Detia Freyberg» the citation of this work is found on page 428 of the book The Chemistry of Auschwitz under the name Peters, Gerhard 1933, Blausäure zur Schädlingsbekämpfung, Ferdinand Enke Verlag, Stuttgart 1933" or on the same page 64. he says to quote Peters "As a rule, at room temperature, most of the cyanide has already been released after half an hour".

I would not have the strength to transcribe the entirety of the article here, however I leave you the link as a refutation of your ideas and await your answers.

https://phdn.org/negation/rudolf/rudolf ... tions.html

PS: If some here want to provide advice so that I can improve the visibility of my messages, it will be with pleasure. Thank you in advance for your answers and if you want translations from French, please let me know your requests.

Monsieur Sceptique

[Archie]

Beinvenue, Monsieur Sceptique. I have split your post off as a new thread since people might not see it ten pages deep in that other thread.

Gilles has been mentioned briefly on the forum here.
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p= ... lles#p3211

I found this discussion on the old forum. Germar apparently discussed the article on a 2020 podcast.
https://archive.codohforum.com/20230609 ... c15a0.html

[Monsieur Sceptique]

Thank you, for the answer, i will gladly look the different link you quote.

[Wetzelrad]

This article seems ridiculous, no? Karmasyn repeatedly alleges that Rudolf falsified something, but in the attempt to explain what, he says that Rudolf reproduced graphics from other sources and also created one based on correspondence with Detia Freyberg, the Zyklon company. Assuming that is true, why should it be off limits to make a graph from the chemical company's information? Karmasyn complains for example that Rudolf doesn't explain what mathematical formula should govern the curve, but obviously it matches the curves from Irmscher and the US Army and the data from Degesch, so what is the nature of the complaint? He's just mad over nothing.

Karmasyn then "fabricates" his own graphs. E.g. Karmasyn claims that Rudolf's curve, which is also reproduced on the page, shows "50% [HCN] release in 44 minutes", but in Karmasyn's own graph he drew Rudolf's curve to 50% at 65 minutes. This is an actual falsification!

Adding to that, the whole text is filled with the venom of someone who clearly does not want this issue to be investigated by anyone. This person frankly seems deranged.

On page 237 of Germar Rudolf’s book, Germar Rudolf cites Irmscher to establish his graph except that he misquotes Irmscher.

I'm struggling to see what the misquote is. Rudolf's reproduction of Irmscher's graph seems accurate. His commentary on the graph and text seem accurate. Is the issue that he quoted Irmscher saying that at high humidity evaporation was "seriously delayed", where your translation is "significantly diminish the rate of evaporation"? That seems like the same meaning with different words, which makes it an ordinary translation.

Karmasyn writes a lot about Irmscher. I assume you want a response to this part:

All of this is even more ludicrous given that Rudolf then invoked two reasons for further lowering the evaporation rate to 30°C in the gas chambers: the inadequate distribution of the Zyklon B granules and high air humidity. [...] Regarding the second point, humidity, it's important to note Rudolf's source: the same article by Irmscher, which specifies that:

"Measurements could not be taken in cases where the humidity in the room was high, inducing a deposition of water or snow (depending on the temperature) on the evaporation surfaces, which significantly reduces the evaporation rate."

Therefore, it is not humidity itself that can slow down the evaporation rate (and we are only talking here about the conditions studied by Irmscher below 15°C), but rather condensation or a snow deposition (clearly referring to low temperatures).

Karmasyn interprets Irmscher to mean that humidity by itself might not affect HCN evaporation, while still accepting that the condensation from humidity would. Will he demonstrate that this distinction would have had any meaning at Auschwitz? No.

Germar Rudolf, who repeats the influence of humidity at least four times (he insists on it) in his text (but always attributing it solely to Irmscher), obviously avoids citing Irmscher specifically.

"Attributing" but not "citing"? This is nonsense. Rudolf does cite Irmscher.

Why? Because, upon reading Irmscher, one understands that the situation he describes does not, in fact, apply at all to the conditions prevailing in a gas chamber. For condensation to occur, the air must be saturated with moisture, that is, 100% humidity.

This is obviously untrue. Most humans in the first-world observe condensation every day at considerably less than 100% humidity.

However, the higher the temperature, the more difficult it is to achieve such a level. Moreover, the condensation that limits the rate of evaporation occurs at low temperatures, below the boiling point of hydrogen cyanide. Would condensation due to human respiration (as Rudolf suggests) in a room above 30°C have a negative impact? There is no evidence to suggest so; quite the contrary.

Karmasyn has taken his incorrect understanding of condensation and his novel interpretation of Irmscher's work to say that not only would humidity not do what Irmscher explicitly stated, but that it would actually do "the contrary"! Absurd.

For one thing, Rudolf never proves that the humidity necessarily reaches 100% under the high-temperature conditions that prevailed in gas chambers (once again, he avoids studying this fundamental factor: temperature). On the other hand, even if such a value were reached, wouldn't the condensation of droplets at a temperature above 30°C have the same effect on liquid hydrogen cyanide as a hot iron on water droplets, namely promoting almost instantaneous evaporation (and rather a transition to the gaseous state by boiling)? In fact, and we should have emphasized this point back in 2016: when exposed to temperatures above 30°C, the hydrogen cyanide contained in Zyklon B is no longer primarily subject to evaporation, but rather primarily to boiling, a radically different phenomenon (it is no longer a simple surface phenomenon), much more violent, and inducing a much faster release of gas.

In addition to all the errors listed above, here Karmasyn claims that HCN at temperatures above boiling should evaporate even faster than expected from the lower temperature curves. To back this up, Karmasyn has no data of any kind, just speculation.

Moreover, his argument is that this is something that would apply to the gas chambers, but the gas chambers would not normally have been "above 30°C" (or 86° F). In actuality gassings are claimed to have been conducted even in the coldest months of winter, and under other unfavorable conditions, but he ignores all that to instead seek out the most ideal possible conditions as a defense for the whole theory. (A proof must be universal, whereas a debunk can be specific.)

I will stop here, at least for now. I do think it is possible that Karmasyn discovered real errors in Rudolf's first report. Did Rudolf originally cite the wrong author for one sentence where he wrote about evaporation rates? Maybe he did. But Karmasyn blows this error out of proportion, making it difficult for readers to even see what he's clamoring about, while he himself engages in deceptions that could much more easily be called "falsification".

[HansHill]

I remember coming across this paper before, likely in my Twitter days. I asked the person who was circulating it at the time, who I had assumed was the author, whether this paper would be made available in English for my own convenience. This was not available at the time, so i used a machine learning translation tool for my review.

I will admit that I could not really understand any of the points being made, and at the time I had given the benefit of the doubt to the paper / author, and decided my machine learning translation was incompetent.

I'm glad to see this paper re-emerge. I see Wetzelrad is encountering some of the same confusions I had come across too.

Monsieur Sceptique 1) welcome, 2) I note you personally are not in a position to translate this paper which is understandable, however if you are familiar with the author, and to remove any possibility that the paper is being obfuscated by poor translations, will it be possible to get a competent translation of this paper as commissioned by him?

[Stubble]

It is very hard to take this seriously...

That's what demonstrated Richard J. Green. It should be noted that Polish scientists found significant quantities of hydrocyanic acid residues...

https://phdn.org/negation/rudolf/rudolf ... tions.html

It would be one thing if that were legitimately true, with it being demonstrably false, I have a hard time slogging through this, but I will keep going.

For the record, I'm not a francophone. I am comparing the machine translation to my clumsy French. Thus far, I'm calling it good.

I'm using 'brave browser' and the 'auto translate' function.

[Callafangers]

In a nutshell (my own diggings but AI-assisted for summarization purposes):

Karmasyn's critique is mostly outdated—it attacks flaws in Rudolf's pre-2017 work that Rudolf himself fixed in later editions. For instance, Rudolf drops the problematic "US Army" graph (calling it "unfounded and misleading"), corrects Irmscher's data (45% HCN release in 30 minutes, not 50%), and refines evaporation models using real 1942 Degesch charts (from Zyklon B makers). He adds an exponential curve (τ=47 min) for accuracy, not guesswork.

Rudolf extrapolates to hot chamber conditions (30°C+ from body heat: 15% release in 5 min, 60% in 30 min) but stresses "serious delays" from 100% humidity—dew forms, binding HCN to wet pellets and floors, slowing evaporation. Karmasyn says Rudolf wrongly applies low-temp Irmscher data here, but Rudolf's simulations (Section 7.3.2) show short gassings (e.g., 5 min) would need impossible Zyklon amounts (64kg—way beyond witness claims like Höss's), factoring in slow ventilation and oxygen drop (victims suffocate faster in stuffy rooms).

Karmasyn's 2020 post-script accuses Rudolf of dodging (e.g., no direct boiling-point talk in his TRS interview), but ignores how Rudolf openly calls for high-temp/CO2 experiments in Section 10 to test unknowns—he admits gaps and invites verification, while Karmasyn doesn't suggest any and doesn't fully engage Rudolf's humidity models or simulations.

Karmasyn weakens his case by skipping Rudolf's 2017 updates: no look at the new graphs or simulations, and he leans on unproven quotes (Peters' "extraordinary rapidity," Rauscher's lab claim of 28% in 5 min at 20°C) without experiments or papers. Rudolf uses verified Irmscher data and models humidity countering heat (e.g., humid chambers act like cooler ones). Karmasyn argues this wrongly applies low-temp Irmscher effects to high-temp scenarios (where boiling might dominate), but without tests, it's just his word against Rudolf's evidence.

Overall, Rudolf's work is stronger now—backed by real data, honest fixes, and calls for more research—while Karmasyn's feels like an old attack ignoring progress. Independent tests (high-temp/humidity) could settle it, as Rudolf urges.

All of the above is in addition to Karmasyn's own hypocrisy, factual errors, and weak methodology as others in the thread here (Wetzelrad, HansHill, Stubble) have noted.

[Monsieur Sceptique]

I remember coming across this paper before, likely in my Twitter days. I asked the person who was circulating it at the time, who I had assumed was the author, whether this paper would be made available in English for my own convenience. This was not available at the time, so i used a machine learning translation tool for my review.

I will admit that I could not really understand any of the points being made, and at the time I had given the benefit of the doubt to the paper / author, and decided my machine learning translation was incompetent.

I'm glad to see this paper re-emerge. I see Wetzelrad is encountering some of the same confusions I had come across too.

Monsieur Sceptique 1) welcome, 2) I note you personally are not in a position to translate this paper which is understandable, however if you are familiar with the author, and to remove any possibility that the paper is being obfuscated by poor translations, will it be possible to get a competent translation of this paper as commissioned by him?

As you wish and for answer you i do not know who is Gilles Karmasyn, i never spoked to him. I need to split the different translation

Introduction
Germar Rudolf is a German Holocaust denier who trained as a chemist. He was very early associated with the hardest German extreme right, he produced in the early 1990s a "report" allegedly demonstrating the impossibility of gassing human beings at Auschwitz, translated into French in 1996 and published by the Belgian Nazi group, VHO. Contrary to what he himself and the sycophant Holocaust deniers claim, Germar Rudolf does not do true science and uses the usual negationist processes, lies and various falsifications, and this from his first publications. A profile and full biography can be found in this section.

Germar Rudolf’s 'demonstrations' were very early refuted in English, notably by a professional chemical engineer (which is not Germar Rudolf), Richard J. Green:
https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... chemistry/
https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... stry/blue/
https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... e-science/

The second study mentioned above has been translated into French: https://phdn.org/negation/rudolf/green_cyanures/

This article is very important, because Rudolf’s main postulate is refuted there: Rudolf had samples taken (illegally) at Auschwitz analyzed for the presence of a specific derivative of hydrocyanic acid, the family of hydrogen ferrocyanides, commonly called Prussian blues. Not finding in the samples taken (he says) in the ruins of the old gas chambers, Rudolf claims to deduce the absence of gasings with hydrogen cyanide in these places. The reasoning and conclusion are false for the following reason: it is not at all established (and rather very unlikely) that Prussian blue must necessarily be formed in case of the use of hydrocyanic acid. That is what Richard J. Green demonstrated. It should be noted that Polish scientists found significant quantities of hydrocyanic acid residues in the old gas chambers, but targeting residues not belonging to the Prussian blue family. This obviously corroborates the reality of mass killings by gassing committed in these places, known both by documents and testimonies.

This is enough to completely disqualify Rudolf’s production. Nevertheless, Germar Rudolf has produced many other statements and 'analyses' in his report, always going in the direction of an impossibility of gassing. If some of Rudolf’s technical "arguments" have been refuted in English, there is no article on the web in French examining other points of his "report". This is the subject of the present text, devoted to Germar Rudolf’s statements on the evaporation rate of hydrocyanic acid. On this subject alone, he illustrates how Rudolf is a manipulator who does not care about the truth, ready to falsify scientific data to advance his negationist discourse. We will moreover show that Germar Rudolf is scientifically incompetent.

It should be emphasized that this is not at all about establishing the reality of the genocide of the Jews, perfectly studied, described and documented, but rather to demonstrate that even the "jewel" of the "scientific" deniers is a vulgar impostor. (there is a link inside and this link is the following https://phdn.org/histgen/index.html )

We base this study on the French edition of the «Rudolf report» published by the Belgian Nazi officine VHO1 in 1996, translation very close to the original German of 1993. Rudolf has continued to republish, modify, and extend his report in editions (at least eight in 2024) in which he notably more or less subtly camouflaged, even removed some of his first manipulations and falsifications (but not all of them, far from it), obviously informed by the numerous demonstrations related to them, without ever taking note of it, obviously. Some negationists have used these later editions as a pretext to claim that the criticisms we make here against the "Rudolf report" would be unfounded (if not "false"). This process of avoiding our explicit mention of the version on which we rely (the first, the most «sincere», the one that founded the sensational entry—one should say smashed — of Rudolf in the circle of the relentless negationist propadandists) is obviously a spectacular and pitiful manifestation of bad faith, if not of incompetence and stupidity, in short, of negationism.

It is necessary to be equipped with a scientific background to detect Rudolf’s falsifications and scientific training facilitates the understanding of their refutation. The author of this article was trained in scientific preparatory classes and holds an engineering degree.

Negationists who play on technical 'expertise' bet on the inability of readers to evaluate their lies and on the fact that scientific dressing imposes it. The following demonstration is provided only to illustrate this point and show how vain it is to play on that field and risky to let oneself be impressed.

[Monsieur Sceptique]

Context
At Auschwitz, the Nazis used Zyklon B which diffused hydrocyanic acid, HCN (hydrogen cyanide), a devastating poison for humans, of which Zyklon B (porous granules) was impregnated in a liquid state. It was the transition to the gaseous state and the diffusion in the form of hydrogen cyanide that caused the rapid death of the Jews who breathed it.

One of the «technical» arguments of Germar Rudolf, later taken up by the little soldiers of negationist propaganda, is to claim that lethal concentrations in HCN could not be reached quickly, that is to say that the release of gaseous hydrocyanic acid would be a very slow process. Rudolf does not show any originality: he only recycles a lie that the negationist Robert Faurisson already hammered in 1979. Rudolf deduces from this the impracticability of the murder by gassing at the HCN.

Rudolf manipulates documents and calculations to arrive at this «result», a spectacular factual untruth(or against the truth), as we will see. It is interesting to note that these calculations are in no way related to what is theoretically the core of his demonstration, his alleged analysis of samples. We are dealing here with a classic syndrome among the negationists: they certainly emphasize the impossible nature (according to them...) of this or that aspect of the assassination process, but strive to show that every aspect, every step, every detail of this process constitutes an impossibility. Thus, the report Rudolf is devoted in its major part to such demonstrations, without links with his sample analyses, a significant part of these "demonstrations" having moreover no scientific dimension and content to take up classical negationist arguments.

The keystone of Germar Rudolf’s arguments in his report about the amounts of hydrocyanic acid released is based on a single figure: according to him, no more than 10% of HCN would be released from Zyklon B within 10 minutes (p. 59). With this «result», Germar Rudolf then claims to demonstrate that the rate of release of cyanhydrique acid (the gas, deadly poison) from Zyklon B is too slow to kill anyone in a few minutes, according to numerous testimonies. Again, is it necessary to establish beforehand the reality of this figure. To achieve this, Germar Rudolf will manipulate data, diagrams, and documents. That’s what we will see.

However, the reader, if he wishes to spare himself the long and tedious demonstration of the various falsifications by Germar Rudolf, can content himself with the graph below which summarizes what we are arriving at. The evaporation law proposed by Rudolf corresponds to the lower curve in Bordeaux(Bordeaux can be use to designate
a variety of Red), the documented reality corresponds at a minimum to the upper curve in blue:

[Monsieur Sceptique]

I. How Rudolf made his HCN evaporation rate curve
Rudolf presents himself as a scientist and claims to perform scientific demonstrations. To affirm that the rate of evaporation is slow, concrete measures are needed. Rudolf does not have one but will nevertheless propose a curve. We need to examine how and the nature of this curve.

He claims (p. 59) to have two sources, one of which emanates, claims Rudolf from the «US-Army Chemical Corps». We will examine it later because, although interesting for our purpose, it is little exploited by Rudolf.

This one mainly insists on a letter that he would have received from the firm Detia Freyberg, which took over from the company Degesch in the marketing of products like Zyklon B. It would be about the rate of release of hydrocyanic acid. This letter, Rudolf gives absolutely no extract from it, and he is the only one who has ever seen it. The support of the modern product of the Freyberg, from which hydrocyanic acid is released, we know nothing about it and Rudolf says nothing about it: yet it has a decisive influence on the evaporation rate of HCN. Nothing says that it is close to the granules of Zyklon B. Drawing quantitative conclusions regarding the evaporation rate of Zyklon B from this letter is therefore impossible. This does not hold back Rudolf who dares to pose insistently to the impartial scientist.

The precise content of the letter is in no way cited, but only vaguely evoked to say that:

'the SARL Detia Freyberg only gives approximate indications(A SARL is Private limited company)(p. 58)
It was indeed read: «approximate indications». Rudolf does not specify explicitly which ones. He writes, however, that 'according to these data the support releases at a temperature of more than 20 oC [...] 80-90 % of hydrocyanic acid in 2 hours' (p. 58). Germar Rudolf does not provide us anywhere «this data» and does not cite the content of the letter. It is reasonable to assume, however, that this range (80-90% after two hours) is in fact contained in the letter and that it is probably the only quantitative ("approximate") information therein. Rudolf may also have extrapolated this range in a completely unfounded way, but it is obviously impossible for us to know, since quite incredibly, the content of the letter is not cited.

Starting from there, Rudolf allows himself an astonishing sleight of hand by multiplying, as we will see, the quantitative affirmations. He begins by referring to a graph (graph 13 p. 59), as if to justify these figures, but it is clear that this graph does not come from the letter of Detia Freyberg (Rudolf would obviously have mentioned it and would not have spoken of approximate indications), that it was created from all parts by Rudolf himself on the basis of the 'approximate indications' (not cited, not accessible...) in this letter, so as to be compatible with the claim that after 2 hours 80 to 90% of the hydrocyanic acid was released... Note also that Rudolf really does not facilitate reading since he talks about the total quantity released, but provides a graph of residual quantity. It’s really not serious. Here is this graph:

Let’s take a closer look at this curve: it is a diagram describing a chemical kinetics (a reaction rate, in this case the release of HCN, namely its transition from the liquid state to the gaseous state). Or to draw an evolution curve in chemical kinetics it is essential to know:

is many points on the curve (that is, couples of elapsed time - residual HCN rate, resulting from precise measurements in real conditions).
is one or two points of the curve and the (mathematical) law of evolution of the reaction.
Rudolf obviously does not have a set of precise points (again, he would have provided this data without speaking about the «approximate» character of the letter from the Detia Freyberg), and nowhere indicates to which evolution law the release of the HCN from the support of Zyklon B should obey!

The curve in question has a shape that Rudolf never scientifically justifies. He provides no indication of how it was established. This is a real magic trick on the part of Rudolf. But certainly not science. Now, it is indeed from this curve that he will deduce (he will claim) a certain number of precise quantitative data, justifying his theory of a slow release of hydrogen cyanide.

However, a trained eye acknowledges that Germar Rudolf decided to make the release speed of hydrogen cyanide obey a simple and classical law: Rudolf decides that the release must obey a kinetics following a decreasing exponential law. This is easily deduced from the shape of the curve and we will prove it, scientifically for once. An exponential law (classic in chemical kinetics) expresses a simple case: the rate at a time t of evolution of the quantity of HCN, or its remaining percentage, (its derivative with respect to time) is proportional to the quantity of HCN at that time. This reflects in particular that this speed decreases (the less hydrocyanic acid remains, the slower its evaporation rate). Let us note that, per se, the hypothesis of such a law for the evaporation of Zyklon B is not unreasonable. Still, it should be stated clearly. This law is expressed mathematically by the following derived equation (with respect to time), taking K as a constant coefficient of proportionality (rate constant of release, in this case independent of the quantity of HCN at time t
(I will not reproduce the different equation )

However, to the extent that Rudolf constantly speaks, in a rather natural way, of the total amount of hydrogen cyanide released over time, we must reason by the total percentage of HCN released. Firstly, it is very easy to return the cumulative clearance curve [%HCN]d of hydrocyanic acid, corresponding to the curve provided by Rudolf, by a vertical symmetry of the curve, corresponding to the operation

From now on, following by the way Rudolf, we will talk about the total amount of HCN released. This translates into our equation, with
[%HCN]d = 100 [%HCN]r:
[%HCN]d=100 100.10( k.T)

where [%HCN]is the total percentage of HCN cleared at the end of duration T. To continue, we must first test our hypothesis on this law. We begin by placing the total clearance curve according to Rudolf on a much more detailed graph, finely squared, where the durations are expressed in minutes and on which one can easily read the values corresponding to the points on the curve (click to zoom):

[Monsieur Sceptique]

If our hypothesis is valid, it is enough to find a point on the curve, to calculate the coefficient
k corresponding and to draw the corresponding exponential distribution curve. If the obtained theoretical curve is close to the Rudolf curve, our hypothesis will be fully validated.

For this, we need a point on the Rudolf curve and calculate the coefficient
k . If for the nth minute we read on the graph the total percentage Pn of HCN cleared, k is easily obtained by the following calculation:

k= log((100 Pn) 100)n

It turns out that the curve provided by Rudolf goes through 60% of HCN cleared in total for 60 minutes. We find:

k = log((100 60) 100)60= log (0.4) 60 = 0.0066323335

Let’s plot the corresponding curve on the same graph, in red(pourpre is red):


It’s quite spectacular: the correspondence is perfect during the first 90 minutes and the maximum divergence is 2% after 240 minutes (4 hours)! This is not a coincidence. Our intuition was the right one: Germar Rudolf built his curve using an exponential law. In fact, Rudolf gives the key to his approach when he writes that according to the letter of the Detia Freyberg, «the support releases at a temperature of more than 20 oC [...] 80 to 90% of the hydrocyanic acid in 2 hours» (p. 58). Although he does not say it explicitly, it most likely corresponds to the only quantitative content present in this letter. Rudolf arbitrarily decided that this corresponded to 85% of HCN cleared in 2 hours and built his curve from there, using, as we assumed, an exponential law, but without saying it. Our positioning on the grid of Rudolf’s curve corresponds to a position between 85% and 86% at 120 minutes, literally in the line thickness. In fine, this explains both the position and the shape of the curve.

Even if it is a reasonable hypothesis, Rudolf completely ignores it and, inevitably, does not justify it. Above all, it provides no data justifying the position (85% or the value of k) of its curve. It remains that it is scientifically unacceptable not to inform the reader that he uses a precise equation to construct his curve. Also remember that we know nothing about the product of the Detia Freyberg, that it is a modern compound, and not the original Zyklon B. Rudolf nowhere justifies the validity of the comparison (it would be necessary to demonstrate the strict identity between the modern compound and Zyklon B; such a demonstration is absent).


Even if it is a reasonable hypothesis, Rudolf completely ignores it and, inevitably, does not justify it. Above all, it provides no data justifying the position (85% or the value of k) of its curve. It remains that it is scientifically unacceptable not to inform the reader that he uses a precise equation to construct his curve. Also remember that we know nothing about the product of the Detia Freyberg, that it is a modern compound, and not the original Zyklon B. Rudolf nowhere justifies the validity of the comparison (it would be necessary to demonstrate the strict identity between the modern compound and Zyklon B; such a demonstration is absent). All this is the most shameless dishonesty and has only a distant connection with the scientific rigor of which Rudolf claims. The hysterical enthusiasm that Rudolf had triggered in the negationist circles is simply risible. As we were saying, his choice of 85% rather than 80% or 90% is arbitrary and only reflects his lack of data. However, we will see that these uncertainties are not without consequences.

In the following, to study the evaporation law provided by Rudolf, we will use (like Rudolf!) the theoretical curve corresponding to 85% at 120 minutes, or, finally, a coefficient (multiple equation)


Graphically, this gives the following:

The correspondence is excellent to less than 2%.

To compare the different values successively put forward by Rudolf (whose goal is always to corroborate his figure of 10% in 10 minutes) we will each time draw the corresponding curve, obeying an exponential law, because it is reasonable and it is the very postulate (even if well passed over in silence) of Germar Rudolf. Let us recall here the general formula that will be used to make these comparisons and detect Rudolf’s frauds and inconsistencies:

(Equation)

And let us note that the inverse equation which allows to calculate the duration T allowing to obtain a given clearance
(equation)

Finally, let us recall the method allowing to calculate the coefficient k when we have the total percentage data
Pn of HCN cleared in a minute n(Factor):
(Equation)
One of the quirks of the curve proposed by Rudolf is to cover 4 hours, which, in the context of gassing human beings, has absolutely no interest. Only the first minutes interest us. Also, we will limit ourselves in the next diagrams to the first hour and a half, which will allow us to be more precise. The curves proposed by Germar Rudolf over several hours are indeed ultimately unusable by the ordinary reader. It is only a staging of science and not true science.

The next part is
II. First falsifications and incompetence of Germar Rudolf

[Monsieur Sceptique]

I remember coming across this paper before, likely in my Twitter days. I asked the person who was circulating it at the time, who I had assumed was the author, whether this paper would be made available in English for my own convenience. This was not available at the time, so i used a machine learning translation tool for my review.

I will admit that I could not really understand any of the points being made, and at the time I had given the benefit of the doubt to the paper / author, and decided my machine learning translation was incompetent.

I'm glad to see this paper re-emerge. I see Wetzelrad is encountering some of the same confusions I had come across too.

Monsieur Sceptique 1) welcome, 2) I note you personally are not in a position to translate this paper which is understandable, however if you are familiar with the author, and to remove any possibility that the paper is being obfuscated by poor translations, will it be possible to get a competent translation of this paper as commissioned by him?

Sorry to ask you that you was the guys who debated with, and i will translate it but it's will be a little bit long and i can't continue today to translate it

[HansHill]

Sorry to ask you that you was the guys who debated with, and i will translate it but it's will be a little bit long and i can't continue today to translate it

That's fine MS, thank you for this attempt at translating, i wasn't expecting this of you so it is appreciated. I will collate these together into a word doc and review it as the translations appear.

[Monsieur Sceptique]

The traduction

II. First falsifications and incompetence of Germar Rudolf
Let’s now see which quantitative statements Rudolf claims to draw from his curve. He writes very precise things:

"It is important to note that at a temperature above 20 oC the medium, during the first five minutes, and probably even during the first ten minutes after dispersal of the product, has released no more than 10% of the hydrocyanic acid." (p. 59)
There is here a first lie whose motivations are not well understood. The very curve provided by Rudolf indicates very clearly that the total amount of HCN released after 10 minutes is 14.6%, not really less than 10%! Based on "approximate indications", Rudolf builds a remarkably precise curve and begins by lying about his own curve by decreasing the amount of HCN released in 10 minutes by more than 30%! It should be kept in mind that the curve proposed by Rudolf invalidates the figure he claims to corroborate with this curve.

More serious is his unjustified choice of the point 85% at 2 hours (120 minutes). Indeed, the consequences on the quantities of HCN evaporated in the first minutes are far from negligible. Indeed, why 85% and not 80% or 90%? 80% cleared in 2 hours/120 minutes (k = 0.00582475) corresponds to 12.5% of HCN cleared in 10 minutes (which is always higher than Rudolf’s 10%! ) and 90 % (
k = 0,008333333) corresponds to 17.5% in 10 minutes. It’s absolutely not the same thing since in the second case, the clearance is 40% higher than the first!
If, for the needs of the cause, we compare the 17.5% of HCN cleared corresponding to 90% in 2 hours (figure presented by Rudolf as realistic) to 10% in 10 minutes hammered by Rudolf, we find ourselves with a gap of 75%! It’s no longer a gap, it’s an abyss. Moreover, it is easy to calculate the total HCN clearance after two hours, for the curve that passes through 10% at 10 minutes ( k =
0.004575749 ): 72%, far from the 80 to 90% of Rudolf... Rudolf is not only dishonest (he promotes a figure significantly lower than his own data claims to have) but also incompetent. He doesn’t even seem to realize that he is accumulating significantly inconsistent numbers.

Let’s continue to draw the consequences from the own figures mentioned by Rudolf. What about the curve corresponding to 10% of HCN cleared in 5 minutes (k = 0.009151498), a hypothesis touched on by Rudolf? In 10 minutes, we have 19% of HCN clear, 90% more than the hypothesis preferred by Rudolf!
Another point that highlights Rudolf’s lack of seriousness: he states, again in relation to his curve, that "under the conditions of graph 13, 50% of hydrocyanic acid is released after 40 or 45 minutes" (p. 59). So? 40 or 45? However, it is enough to read the curve or use the equation. The duration of the curve corresponding to 50% is between 44 and 46 minutes. And the calculation using the distribution for 85% in two hours ( k= 0.0068659062) gives (using the inverse equation) 43 minutes and 51 seconds, say 44 minutes. If Rudolf had wanted to round up, taking 45 minutes would have been satisfactory. Why pretend to use a range when he has the exact equation? It’s completely hypocritical and one gets the impression that he is sailing by sight. In the end, it’s not so much the letter from the Detia Freyberg that is approximate, it’s Rudolf himself. Approximate and dishonest. Cutting the pear in half by choosing 85% only signals the fog in which he navigates and wants to maintain his reader. That’s not the worst.

Next part is III. Rudolf employs deceptive and contradictory statistics.

Rudolf knows well the weakness of his position. Therefore, he tries to reinforce the credibility of his curve by referring to data from the time by claiming that according to period sources, 50% of HCN is released in 1/2 hour, a figure which he suggests would be consistent with his curve. Rudolf writes:

«According to Irmscher, the release time of 50% of hydrocyanic acid is 1/2 hour [...] This corresponds approximately to the data from SARL Detia Freyberg» (p. 59)
'Irmscher' refers to a source from 1942. We will return to it below. Rudolf thus explicitly states that 50% in 1/2 hour corroborates the curve he proposed to us and that we are beginning to know well. There is a striking proof of the total lack of seriousness of Rudolf on the scientific level. Indeed, his curve corresponds to a clearance of 50% for 44 minutes, very, very far from the 30 minutes of the source he claims to cite. How can he dare to assert that this «roughly corresponds» to 50% in 30 minutes. It’s almost as if he were writing that a speed of 200 km/h «roughly corresponds» to a speed of 135 km/h!

Let us then ask a question: why does Rudolf, who claims to have at his disposal (which we will see later on what it really is) digital data from the time (50% in 30 minutes), not rely on this figure, relative to Zyklon B, contemporary of its use, to build his curve? That would still seem much more logical.

The reason for this is simple: with the type of evolution law chosen by Rudolf himself, 50% in 30 minutes ( k = 0.010034333 ), this gives a clearance of 94% in 2 hours and 20.6% of HCN in 10 minutes... more than double the number favored by Rudolf. We understand why the latter preferred to manipulate the data (as blurry as they may be) from the Freyberg! Although it escapes us that he could have made a curve that does not even corroborate his figure of 10% in ten minutes.

One can easily visualize Rudolf’s inconsistencies by tracing the different curves which, if understood correctly, are all more or less equivalent. We offer two diagrams. The first presents the curves corresponding to the three main 'propositions of Rudolf' (over 90 minutes, which is sufficient): (graph)

We visually notice that Rudolf simultaneously offers contradictory figures, provided we comply with the exponential law he proposes. And it becomes a festival if we present all the possibilities that can be drawn from what Rudolf writes (we spare the reader the curve «10% in 5 minutes», very close to «50% in 30 minutes»...):(graph)

using Rudolf’s approach and his own figures (although they are themselves falsified as we will see later), but being more logical (we apply to Zyklon B the data of Zyklon B!) leads to a result equivalent to 200% of that of Rudolf. 50% in half an hour neither confirms the graph made by Rudolf on the basis of the letter from Detia Freyberg, and even less so Rudolf’s lower hypothesis, 10% in 10 minutes. Note once again that 10% in 5 minutes and 10% in 10 minutes are absolutely not equivalent values, nor even close, since 10% in 5 minutes leads to 19% cleared in 10 minutes. The only assumptions that corroborate each other could, at a pinch, be 10% in 5 minutes and 50% in 30 minutes which correspond to fairly close curves (k = 0.009151498 and k= 0.010034333), but Rudolf does not even note it. He’s an incompetent.

We are not at the end of our troubles because the very figure of 50% in 30 minutes is the result of an incredible falsification that radically minimizes the evaporation rate of hydrocyanic acid!

[Monsieur Sceptique]

IV. Rudolf, falsifier of texts and documents

Let’s get back to the origin of this figure of 50% clearance in 1/2 hour. Here the previous versions (English and German) of the Rudolf report will be useful to us. In the French version, Rudolf lists, as if he had just spoken about it, two authors Freyberg and Peters, giving information on the release speed of HCN2. Now if indeed Rudolf quotes the letter from the Detia Freyberg, no information was previously cited as emanating from Peters. We read on the other hand, we remember, «According to Irmscher, the release time of 50% of hydrocyanic acid is 1/2 hour [...]». We must therefore investigate.

The note (153) that accompanies this statement puts us on the track. It should contain the reference to a work by this Irmscher, which is indeed the case. The surprise (or not) comes from the fact that it presents a second source, a reference to a work by G. Peters, dated 1933. It is by referring to the first versions of the Rudolf report, in English and German, that we understand what happened. Indeed, in previous versions of his report, it was not at all about Irmsher, but only about Peters. Rudolf wrote then:

Which means:

'G. Peters[152] gives a release of 50% hydrocyanic acid in 1/2 hour [...]. This is roughly consistent with the evolution data provided by the Detia Freyberg».

Note 1525 referred to page 64 of Peters' work. The figure of 50% in half an hour was therefore justified by the only work of Peters from 1933. It is clear that in the French version, maintaining the reference to Peters in note 153 is a mistake, an oversight, since it was on Irmscher alone that Rudolf now claimed to base his figure of 50% after 30 minutes. Why this change?

Gerhard Peters is co-inventor of Zyklon B. He led the company Degesch for a time, which marketed it. In his 1933 work, Blauskinson zur Schädlings©fung6, well known to Rudolf, Peters describes the process of hydrogen cyanide evolution from Zyklon B in a way that dramatically contradicts all of Rudolf’s construction. Peters states, on page 64, the very one initially cited by Rudolf, that as soon as the contents of a box of Zyklon are spread, the HCN is released "very violently". Nothing to do with the slow clearance advanced by Rudolf...

And that’s not all. Initially, therefore, Rudolf wrote (in both the German and English versions) that according to Peters, 50% of the HCN was cleared in half an hour, which is traced in note 153. What did Peters really write? Still on page 64, Peters writes:

«As a general rule, most of the cyanide has already been released after half an hour at room temperature».

By restoring the expression «la plus grande partie (der > Teil)» to exactly «50%», Germar Rudolf, from being incompetent and dishonest that he was already, promotes himself to the status of outright falsifier. Rudolf shamelessly falsified, transformed this «larger part» into «half», in order to make it stick — and we saw that it didn’t even work! — the writings of Peters to his diagram. In science this is called fraud.

It is understood that Rudolf realized that his manipulation was too enormous and regrettably sought another source to base his figure of 50%. Not only does Germar Rudolf falsify his sources and lie shamelessly about the reality—of which he is perfectly aware — of the (very high!) rate of evaporation of hydrocyanic acid, but he seeks to conceal his plan in a cowardly and hypocritical manner. The reference, in the latest versions of his report, to Irmscher, whose original text he does not cite in the French version, is then only an attempt by Rudolf to clean up the biggest falsifications of his 'report' and to conceal reality (an extremely quick release) who bothers him so much.

Since 1996, Rudolf knows that he was caught in the sac8. He will continue to publish new versions of his report by modifying the passage in question in order to eliminate its initial falsification, without ever acknowledging it. He even went so far as to claim in 1997, in a footnote to an article written under pseudonyms,9 that it was some kind of typo, whereas he had repeated the same falsification in 1993 in German and in 1994 in English. Afterwards, Rudolf preferred to completely silence his initial falsification. We will see below what Irmscher is up to...

what we need to focus on is therefore that this figure of 50% in 1/2 hour is an invention of Rudolf based on a falsification. The authentic information is that «most of» emerges in 30 minutes. Common sense, current usage tells us that 'the largest part' obviously means that one is closer to the totality than to the half. What happens if we assign, honestly this time a specific value to the expression 'the largest part'? 60%, 70%, 80%, 90%? Each time, a curve corresponds that allows for the calculation of the values released after 2 hours or 10 minutes. Let’s examine this table (rounded to %):(graph)

The observation is spectacular. As soon as the phrase "most of it" is given reasonable meaning (at least 70%), amounts of hydrocyanic acid released after 10 minutes are found to be significantly higher than the figures hammered out by Germar Rudolf. One easily understands the purpose of its falsification: to minimize at all costs the speed of HCN release. One can visualize on a diagram (by comparing the 50% of Rudolf to, for example, 70% or 90% for «the largest part» of Peters):
(graph)

The falsification of both scientific and experimental reality by Germar Rudolf is moreover obvious if one refers to the original documents on Zyklon B: they are in total contradiction with Rudolf’s thesis of a slow evaporation. Thus the 1926 patent — which completes that of 1922—(never to mention Rudolf) describing the principle of the Zyklon stipulates:

Which means:

«Prussic acid evaporates in about 10 minutes if the contents of the can are spread in a thin layer, so that the maximum concentration of gas in the room is reached with extraordinary speed.»
In short, the documents even emanating from the professionals who developed the Zyklon B demonstrate that the speed of evaporation is extremely fast, contrary to what the negationists maintain through anti-scientific approximations and various falsifications.

What about the other source mentioned by Rudolf, Irmscher? The content of this 1942 publication is not cited in our French version, which is obviously problematic. We must turn to the later editions, in German or in English, of Germar Rudolf’s «report». In these later versions, the mention of Gerhard Peters to support the figure of 50% in 30 minutes disappears completely, replaced by the single mention of Irmscher and this time accompanied by a diagram of very average quality reproducing that of the original publication. The latter studies the rate of evaporation of hydrocyanic acid at very low temperatures (and according to the nature of the absorbers) and provides diagrams including evaporation curves for several temperatures ranging from -18 to 15 C. These are actually two diagrams that are proposed by Irmscher:
(graph)
In the first versions of his report, Germar Rudolf did not take the trouble to explain that he was using the second of these diagrams (which corresponds to the granulated support used in the Zyklon B at Auschwitz) any more than he had taken the time to provide it. Here it is in better quality:
(graph)

No more than he specified which diagram he was using, Germar Rudolf did not specify to which of the four curves he referred for his figure of 50% in 30 minutes. We are dealing with a raging amateur (the fact that he corrected little by little, over the countless editions of his report, all these points only highlights the initial lamentable improvisation, commanded above all by the desire to force a predetermined result). It is however easy to understand that he used curve 4, corresponding to the measurements made by Irmscher at 15 C.

The experimental kinetic law also seems to resemble the exponential law proposed by Rudolf. This does not arouse in him any remark since in these later editions, Rudolf renounced, without the slightest explanation, to use the letter of the Detia Freyberg and the curve that he had made. But we cannot deal here with the countless successive editions committed by Rudolf, who each time tries to conceal his biggest manipulations by trying to respond to the refutations produced on his first versions (what drives it, as we see, to significantly modify its content). The first obvious observation is that one wonders how Rudolf found his 50% figure in half an hour from the curves at 15oC. The reader can exert his eyes and perplexity on this question, to which Rudolf obviously brings no answer. This is not science, it’s tinkering in the fog (all the more dishonest as the diagrams are not provided in our French edition!). Yet it is not very difficult to carry out the work seriously, to isolate curve 4 and place it on a grid diagram (over the first 90 minutes, it is more than enough):
(graph)
And there you go... The curve obviously does not check the number hammered by Rudolf. It is enough to read. According to Irmscher, at 15 oC, 45% is released in half an hour. Still crispier, we had already noted it above, but we can see it visually on the curve on which Rudolf claims to base his 10% conclusion in 10 minutes: we read on the curve in question... 18% in 10 minutes: a value 80% higher than that suggested by Rudolf.

More fundamental: we note that the rate of evaporation depends very much on temperature: the higher the temperature, the greater the rate is, in passing a fact from a scientific point of view. We will return to it because Germar Rudolf passes this unavoidable property for the subject treated completely in silence. Let us recall once again what Rudolf writes:

«According to Irmscher, the release time of 50% of hydrocyanic acid is 1/2 hour [...] This corresponds approximately to the data from SARL Detia Freyberg» (p. 59)
The only useful curve of Irmscher diagrams is that of evaporation at 15 C. Or Rudolf wrote about the letter from Detia Freyberg:

«According to this data [provided by the Detia Freyberg] the support releases at a temperature of more than 20 C [...] 80 to 90% of the hydrocyanic acid in 2 hours»

This obviously means that, for the moment, explicit information was included in the letter: its data concern temperatures above 20 C! Under these conditions, data relating to a curve at 15 C cannot be applied. The diagrams provided by Irmscher, even if one could derive from them the information that 50% of hydrocyanic acid is released in half an hour, at 15 C, therefore do not corroborate such a figure for temperatures above 20 C. Rudolf nage, or rather drowns, in an ocean of inconsistencies: from the curve at 15 C of Irmscher, it is easy to draw that the release is much faster (more than 80% after 1 hour and 10 minutes, 90% in just over 1 hour and thirty minutes) that what Rudolf claims to derive from the smoky letter of the Detia Freyberg at more than 20 C. Rudolf, who nevertheless has in front of him, this crucial information provided by Irmscher—the higher the temperature, the faster the speed of release — does not wonder how at 20 C, the speed could be lower than at 15 C. This obviously disqualifies this invisible letter, otherwise the one who claims to use it as a source... If Rudolf had an ounce of honesty and skill, he would have deduced from Irmscher that at 20 C (and above) the rate of release of hydrogen cyanide should be higher than that of the curve at 15 C of Irmscher.

Once again, from a scientific point of view, Rudolf’s claims are completely inadmissible. After falsifying Peters, trying to hide his falsification, Rudolf is reduced to committing a new fraud, scientific one. The only useful information is interesting comes from the study by Gerhard Peters of 1933, corroborated by the patent of 1922, at room temperature, hydrocyanic acid evaporates with extraordinary rapidity, the release being carried out for the most part in half an hour... Remains this fundamental question of temperature, barely touched on by Rudolf. We will understand why