In 2001, Faurisson published this article about the swimming pool at Auschwitz I. He claimed that "The pool was a pool. It was meant for the detainees." However, the solitary direct eyewitness that Faurisson quoted in the original article stated that, "It should be noted that only the very fit and well-fed, exempt from the harsh jobs, could indulge in these games..."
This is therefore a direct distortion by Faurisson, contradicted by his own witness. The pool was only meant for a small minority of detainees: the administrative workers in Auschwitz I. We do not know from the extract that any of these were Jews. The workers at Buna (Auschwitz III) and those selected for Birkenau never went near it; nor did those on starvation rations, nor those doing heavy labour. Yet, as was surely Faurisson's intention, deniers have swallowed this evidence as if it related to the whole of Auschwitz. Both astro3 [Kollerstrom] and 'Hannover' [Hargis] do precisely that here. Readers can decide for themselves whether this misreading was done through mendacity or sheer stupidity. With Hargis and Kollerstrom, either answer would be plausible.
Furthermore, in an addendum on the same link, Faurisson quoted a later witness account, written in 1997, stating that "a newsreel director had some deportees filmed swimming there." An honest scholar might conclude that this indicated the true propaganda purpose of the pool, but Faurisson is a dishonest scholar and chooses to call the witness a liar, except in the small part where his testimony supports Faurisson's claim.