Wednesday, February 01, 2017

The French denier Vincent Reynouard and his clownish denial innovations

Author: HC Guest Blogger
[Today's guest post is by Gilles Karmasyn, the creator of the great website Pratique de l’histoire 
et dévoiements négationnistes AKA PHDN. Please note that our opinions don't necessarily correspond to those of our guests.]

The most publicly active French denier is Vincent Reynouard. Most of the English-speaking people don't know him as he is pretty insignificant, but lately some of his videos have been subtitled in English. Vincent Reynouard is a self-proclaimed Nazi- and Hitler-lover. Most of his production is inspired by the ill-digested logorrhea from Mattogno and Rudolf. Lately he mainly appears in videos where he explains how beautiful and generous Nazism was and how much a man of peace Hitler was (some of the videos are called "The National Socialist hope", "The truth about the Gestapo", "The real criminals against peace, how the 'good ones' were intolerant and warmongers", and so on). Of course, denying the Holocaust is his main thing.

He can be quite funny and pathetic at the same time. One of his favorite hobbies is beating dead horses. In a September 2015 video Reynouard claimed that hydrogen cyanide (HCN, the deadly gas released by Zyklon B) evaporates slowly, even though precisely the opposite is true. He claimed in that same video that to kill human beings with hydrogen cyanide requires a 7500 ppm concentration at least for 10 minutes. That's 25 times the established lethal dose! (Well, why not? Does not water boil at 2500°C?) Moreover he keeps repeating the long-debunked scientific nonsense that Prussian blue (ferrocyanide family compounds) must absolutely appear whenever hydrogen cyanide is used. This comes, of course, straight from Rudolf and Leuchter and has been debunked over and over (and over) by Dr. Richard J. Green.

But sometimes he manages to be creative and comes up with a tremendous and hilarious new lie. Basically everyone in the anti-denial community knows about the Polish 1994 expert report which found significant HCN traces in Auschwitz at the very locations where so many witnesses had told about murder by gas and that Markiewicz and the other experts explicitly used methods THAT DO NOT look for Prussian blue, but for the OTHER cyanide residues. They described it in the very article that revealed the results of their study. They did that because they knew that Prussian blue is not bound to form in all cases of HCN use, especially in gas chambers where human beings were murdered in Auschwitz.

What does Reynouard claim? Of course, like Leuchter and Rudolf, in that same September 2015 video he claims something like "Hey, see? No blue staining in the so called gas chambers! No blue staining means no HCN use! No gas chamber!". Well, nothing new here. We know of course no blue staining just means no Prussian blue, no less and no more, and that HCN does leave other cyanide residues (found by Markiewicz et al.). Again, nothing new.

Then, out of the blue, Reynouard repeats SIX times that Markiewicz claimed to have found... FERROcyanide (aka Prussian blue)! Well, they did NOT, because of course they were looking explicitly for other cyanide residues (and found some). Reynouard repeats the same exact incredibly huge and ridiculous lie six times! And then, with a pathetic and clownish self-righteousness he concludes: since they found FERROcyanide but one cannot see the blue staining, the 1994 Polish expertise is just trash and the gas chambers did not exist. Not a single denier had previously dared to lie so outrageously about the nature and content of the 1994 Polish study just to dismiss it and insult its authors.

Very satisfied with himself, he then keeps elaborating about how strong the simple Truth (capital T) is and declares that he (understand: contrary to everyone else in the Universe) works on concrete and solid ground.

Frankly, if I were a denier, I would feel much embarrassed by being associated with such a profoundly clownish falsifier. (Or would I?)

French-reading folks can get all the gory details of that story on the French anti-Holocaust-denial website (whose director I am):  Imposture & Stupidité: quatre mensonges consternants de Vincent Reynouard sur les chambres à gaz.

12 comments:

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

Great article, thanks!

Didn't Reynouard also deny the Oradour-sur-Glane massacre on 10 June 1944, on grounds that there were paper flowers (obviously placed there later for commemoration purposes) on the altar of the church in which the village's women and children were burned? I remember having read something in that direction.

Eric Danielski said...

„Im Erdgeschoss der Kirche gab es Objekte aus Holz, zum Beispiel den Beichtstuhl. Wenn es sich wirklich um eine intensive Feuerbrunst gehandelt hätte, die 500 Frauen und Kinder verbrannte, wie konnte es dann sein, dass ein hölzernes Objekt die Flammen überstand? Noch heute findet man auf dem Altar Seidenblumen, die von Pierre Pitevin nur wenige Stunden nachdem das Drama stattgefunden hatte, beschrieben wurden. Wie könnten solche zerbrechlichen Textilien den Flammen eines lang anhaltenden Feuers widerstanden haben?“

https://unbequemewahrheit2014.wordpress.com/2014/12/18/die-ganze-wahrheit-uber-das-ss-massaker-von-oradour/

Reactionary said...

”This comes, of course, straight from Rudolf and Leuchter and has been debunked over and over (and over) by Dr. Richard J. Green.”

Now I'm not familiar with this topic with gas, etc., but I have seen those links and have also seen revisionists talking about this book, that are claiming to debunk back those articles: http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?main_page=1&page_id=18

”Chemist Dr. Richard Green declared that Revisionists’ chemical arguments were flawed, yet Green was forced to admit that Revisionists were right after all”

What I wonder is have Dr. Green, you guys on this blog or someone else read the book and responded to the arguments that are there?

And have you been debating this with Rudolf?

Nathan said...

-Chemist Dr. Richard Green declared that Revisionists’ chemical arguments were flawed, yet Green was forced to admit that Revisionists were right after all”-

Dr. Green made no such admission. Probably just another Denier lie.

The whole bullshit about "Prussian Blue" is just goalpost moving. Nothing more. Everyone who tested those ruins - Rudolf, Zundel, Marciewicz- found cyanide in them. PB or otherwise. The traces prove that they were exposed to cyanide, and the rest of the converging evidence tells us exactly why.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...


«https://unbequemewahrheit2014.wordpress.com/2014/12/18/die-ganze-wahrheit-uber-das-ss-massaker-von-oradour/»

Yeah, that may have been where I read the cited junk. A lovely site indeed. One of your favorites?

Gilles, what is your comment about Reynouard's claims re Oradour? Has a rebuttal thereof already been written?

Sergey Romanov said...

Dr. Green has presumably better things to do than engage in what to amounts to an infinite game of whack-a-troll. A simple reading and comparison of Rudolf's and Green's arguments shows that Rudolf is full of shit, as usual. The arguments are not really very complex, even if you don't understand some of the chemistry (I sure don't). E.g. Rudolf makes a lot of fuss about the pH value of masonry, but Green provides arguments showing that even if Rudolf is right about the pH value his formation scenario is still improbable. So whether or not Green was right to mention Markiewicz et al.'s pH estimates is irrelevant since Green covers all the bases anyway. Another example would be the holes. Now, their existence was proven by Mazal et al., contrary to Rudolf and Mattogno's protestations, but isn't it clear that in his *chemical* argument Rudolf simply has to assume that the holes (and the mesh columns) existed? *If* they didn't, the chemical argument is irrelevant in the first place since the gassings did not take place, so there is no need for all the chemical arcana. Prussian blue formation or non-formation supervenes on the holes. Is Rudolf too dumb to understand this and proceed on the assumption of the holes' existence? Apparently so. But his discussion of the Kula columns shows that he simply didn't understand Kula's description of them (or, more specifically, of the inner distribution container). Indeed, he writes that the inner container would have to be made of a fine mesh. But that's exactly how Kula described it! Has Rudolf even read the statement?

Moreover, reading Rudolf's response shows that Green did not admit anything about the main thesis, rather Rudolf fancies that that he admitted something "indirectly", i.e. it's Rudolf's interpretation, and we already know how much Rudolf's interpretations are worth.

Sergey Romanov said...

> Didn't Reynouard also deny the Oradour-sur-Glane massacre on 10 June 1944, on grounds that there were paper flowers (obviously placed there later for commemoration purposes) on the altar of the church in which the village's women and children were burned?

Given that the Church was in ruins from an explosion and the corpses are very well-documented (not to mention graphic), what would this "flowers" argument even establish? Certainly not that there was no explosion and deaths (since they're documented). Then what? Boy, are they dumb.

In any case, the massacre happened on the 10th while Poitevin visited the village clandestinely on the 19th. How is that "wenige Stunden"?

Anyway, Reynouard seems to have been tackled in a book on Oradour in French - see a review at https://alsace.revues.org/2289

Gilles Karmasyn said...

Hi Roberto. Thanks for your appreciation. Yes, you are right, Reynouard first made himself (in)famous with his hypercritical rewritiing of the Oradour massacre. He does not deny more than 600 civilians "died". But, according to him, the french resistance is responsible for everything (what a suprise). Oradour is supposed to have been a major rear resistance base, and most of the victims in the church fire (about half of all the victims) are due to resistance ammunition kept there that exploded without any german responsibility. Reynouard does forget about the Das Reich SS Division violence culture it had developped in the East and many massacres it committed before Oradour (only the biggest one) as a *policy*. I personnaly never explored that field. Sarah Farmer, Jean Jacques Fouché, Bruno Kartheuser have written serious history books about Oradour and other Das Reich crimes, but I read only Farmer's work a long time ago and to my knowledge they do not deal with Reynouard's distorsions. A more recent work by Jean Paul Picaper (Les ombres d'Oradour / Oradour's shadows - 2014, Sergey does mention it) seems to deal with various distorsions (not only Reynouard's, but including some of Reynouard's). I did not read it. I am trying to convince a close friend to tackle that subject though. Having experienced Reynouard's sloppiness and dishonesty, I have no doubt the result would be devastating. But, hey, we have lives... :-)

Two (or three...) words about Rudolf: I completely agree with what Sergey just wrote above. No need to address every single microscopic new lie or manipulation that Rudolf constinuously produces to rewrite, correct, twist, hide his previous not so microscopic lies or manipulations. How many versions of his "report" has he produced, since 1991? Five? Ten? I lost count. Remember that David Irving, for his appeal (after he lost his suit against D. Lipstadt) asked Rudolf to write (another) report. Dr. Green wrote a (magnificent, a must read) analysis and debunk of that report. Well, Irving got (very) cold feet and decided not to submit Rudolf's 749th report... Anyone can guess why? I have my idea: Irving, as dumb as he can be, is not *completely* suicidal... Another thing: I addressed some of Rudolf's allegations from his original report (two pages about HCN evaporation rate (speed) in the french edition of his report: Rudolf tries to demonstrate HCN evaporates from Zyklon very slowly, a monstruous counterfactual lie). Rudolf is an incredibly dishonest person, hiding data, blurring facts, falsifying sources, using fabricated documents (oh, do i love that "Pinter" Mathausen "Bericht" provided by no other than Emil Lachout, something, of course, Rudolf "forgot" to tell...), able to utter two or even more scientificaly mutually exclusive propositions in the same paragraph: an imposter. French reading lurkers can verify this (and have a lot of fun) where I wrote at length about it: http://phdn.org/negation/rudolf/rudolfincompetencefalsifications.html (that piece was written for the twentieth anniversary of phdn...). In that study I do use a real evaporation rate information provided by a real qualified expert: Herbert Rauscher, chemist from the german Heli company, a Zyklon B expert, testified in 1948, during the IG Farben case that 28% of HCN evaporates in 5 minutes at 20°C (almost *six* times the rate Rudolf *fabricates*).

No need to loose time anymore with Rudolf. Ever.

Eric Danielski said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Eric Danielski said...

French Revisionist and Political Prisoner Vincent Reynouard Interviewed by Paul Fromm

Vincent Reynouard tells Paul Fromm, director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression, about his life as a revisionist. Persecutions, searches of the Police, prison, exile, grievous loss of his family (two times...).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBWQPbEMfOg

http://codoh.com/library/document/4221/

Sergey Romanov said...

Since he likes the Nazis who persecuted and murdered people on a scale incomparable to anything he has experienced, what does he have to complain about?

Eric Danielski said...

In the new issue of Inconvenient History Rudolf announced some changes.

„Inconvenient History now carries material in a number of foreign languages, and we ask our readers to help us get non-English contributions translated into English for parallel carriage. Inconvenient History also allows video and audio files to be submitted alongside a transcript of their verbal contents. Unchanged is the type and style of content Inconvenient History covers.“

https://codoh.com/library/document/4229/

He also made another revision of his book.

„© 1991, 1992, 1993, 2001, 2003, 2011, 2017 by Germar Rudolf“

https://shop.codoh.com/media/uploads/diechemievonauschwitz_vorschau.pdf

https://shop.codoh.com/book/435/448