Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Discussions
Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Bob » Sat Mar 10, 2012 4:47 pm

Nessie wrote:Sorry, you are not dismissing his evidence, but his description of the column refutes gassing and in any case it never existed. :?
Never existed, no documental trace (there should be, we have documents), no physical trace.

What is worse, technical absurdity, demonstrated in thread to Mr. Muehlenkamp.

Hans
Poster
Posts: 323
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:25 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Hans » Sat Mar 10, 2012 4:50 pm

Bob wrote:
Hans wrote:
Bob wrote:
Hans wrote:No, since I don't know what part of the roof the photographs show.
You don´t know? Interesting, because these photos show exactly the parts of the roof where your hole should be located, especially photo 2871 show precisely this location.
How do you know?
Because of your own source here
http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c166/ ... -final.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... -final.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Where shows photo 2871 precisely the location identified by Mazal et al.? Please mark it in the photo and we can go on.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Bob » Sat Mar 10, 2012 4:54 pm

Hans wrote:Here is opening number 2 (most likely):
Pardon? You don´t know?
Where exactly this is in the photographs you posted, how should I tell from here?
Again , pardon, but i see no introduction hole, so i can hardly tell you where is. :roll: You claim there is this hole 2, I provided you with great photos of this location, so show me.

I already saw photos from your report and they don´t show introduction hole, I have eyes, this is clear.
I fail to see the point of the exercise.
To show me where are the holes, that´s all.
Where shows photo 2871 precisely the location identified by Mazal et al.? Please mark it in the photo and we can go on.
In the other words, you have no clue otherwise you wouldn´t need to mark it by me, correct?

Hans
Poster
Posts: 323
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:25 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Hans » Sat Mar 10, 2012 4:56 pm

Bob wrote:
Nessie wrote:Sorry, you are not dismissing his evidence, but his description of the column refutes gassing and in any case it never existed. :?
Never existed, no documental trace (there should be, we have documents), no physical trace.
If you write this just hundreds times more, then (maybe!) some will start to believe you despite the strong testimonial, photographic, documentary and physical evidence.

Hans
Poster
Posts: 323
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:25 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Hans » Sat Mar 10, 2012 5:03 pm

Bob wrote:
Where shows photo 2871 precisely the location identified by Mazal et al.? Please mark it in the photo and we can go on.
In the other words, you have no clue otherwise you wouldn´t need to mark it by me, correct?
I am not here to make your homework.

You have posted the photograph and you claim it would show "precisely" the the location, where Mazal et al believe is the projected location of opening number 3, and I simply ask you to back up and illustrate your claim. That's all.

So please now, mark in photo 2871 the location which shows precisely the location identified by Mazal et al.
Last edited by Hans on Sat Mar 10, 2012 5:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Hans
Poster
Posts: 323
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:25 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Hans » Sat Mar 10, 2012 5:08 pm

Bob wrote:
Where exactly this is in the photographs you posted, how should I tell from here?
Again , pardon, but i see no introduction hole, so i can hardly tell you where is. :roll: You claim there is this hole 2, I provided you with great photos of this location, so show me.

I already saw photos from your report and they don´t show introduction hole, I have eyes, this is clear.
Just that I understand you correctly, you think that this does not show a hole?

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Bob » Sat Mar 10, 2012 5:34 pm

Hans wrote:
Bob wrote:
Nessie wrote:Sorry, you are not dismissing his evidence, but his description of the column refutes gassing and in any case it never existed. :?
Never existed, no documental trace (there should be, we have documents), no physical trace.
If you write this just hundreds times more, then (maybe!) some will start to believe you despite the strong testimonial, photographic, documentary and physical evidence.
Testimonial evidence for columns is contradicting and speask about nonsenses, some don´t speaks about them at all.

Show me photographic evidence of alleged column proving his existence, I am really curious.

Show me documentary evidence of column, hope you are not going to show again inventory list of Krema II, already refuted.

Physical evidence of column, great, show me.

What an interesting statements.
I am not here too make your homework.
Yep, exactly as I said, you really don´t know where it is, you can show photos from your source, but you don´t understand them.

Here is marked location of your invisible hole, see white line, this is area in which you propably believe since I logically marked the center of photo from your source.
http://www.imagebam.com/image/7c57f2179106053" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Another helpful photo showing large part of your location from your source
http://bp0.blogger.com/_AB36D4g8j4Q/R7s ... G_2872.JPG" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hope you are finally familiar with "your" report and you know what is going on, show introduction hole, I still wait.
Just that I understand you correctly, you think that this does not show a hole?
I see hole, but you should read me carefully, I said "don´t show introduction hole" or you are claiming that his crack caused by destruction served as square introduction opening for Zyklon B?

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Bob » Sat Mar 10, 2012 6:10 pm

Hans wrote:The location is 4.1 m from the southern wall and 3.25 m from the western wall (in the original state).
Your hole 2 is 4.1m from the southern wall and 3.25m from the western hole in original state, ok. Here is your already flawed model used to "match" photo from Feb 1943 together with dimensions. I used as a final point edge of your chimney.
http://www.imagebam.com/image/6a31a9179111951" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

11,15m from the southern wall.
4,4m from the western wall.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3073
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Nessie » Sat Mar 10, 2012 6:33 pm

Bob wrote:
Nessie wrote:Sorry, you are not dismissing his evidence, but his description of the column refutes gassing and in any case it never existed. :?
Never existed, no documental trace (there should be, we have documents), no physical trace.

What is worse, technical absurdity, demonstrated in thread to Mr. Muehlenkamp.
You said "I am not the one who is dismissing his evidence" and then you go on to completely dismiss his evidence as fictitious (never existed) and false (technical absurdity). It is no wonder I find what you say hard to follow at times as it is so contradictory.

Your contradictory treatment of witness evidence seriously damages your case and casts serious doubt on your ability to deal with physical evidence as well.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Bob » Sat Mar 10, 2012 6:39 pm

Nessie wrote:You said "I am not the one who is dismissing his evidence" and then you go on to completely dismiss his evidence as fictitious (never existed) and false (technical absurdity). It is no wonder I find what you say hard to follow at times as it is so contradictory.
No, you have only problem to interpret my comments properly as usual :roll: I do not dispute his testimony, his evidence for how the column looked like, his testimony is detailed, but I am saying that this column never existed, no traces and what he described is technical nonsense and I backed it up, he clearly lied and had no clue about what he is talking about because no gassings happened. But believers dispute his testimony, how the column looked like.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3073
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Nessie » Sat Mar 10, 2012 7:01 pm

Bob, you have just said "I do not dispute his testimony" and then "he clearly lied and had no clue about what he is talking". Seriously, you cannot see the complete contradiction there?
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Bob » Sat Mar 10, 2012 7:07 pm

:roll:

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3073
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Nessie » Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:13 pm

Bob wrote::roll:
Really. This is your problem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2 ... ger_effect" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Bob » Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:19 pm

If this will help you to feel better, no problem, but it does not change anything.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3073
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Nessie » Sun Mar 11, 2012 4:06 am

I have been re-reading some of your posts and your sometimes inability to understand what others say and the way you present your arguments in an often hardly intelligible way, but are certain of your truth and everybody else is telling lies is classic Dunning Kruger.

I do think you have very good evidence for certain things, but a terrible grasp of other matters. At least I now know why I have struggled with many of your arguments.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

RICH-ENGLAND
Poster
Posts: 270
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2011 8:20 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by RICH-ENGLAND » Sun Mar 11, 2012 6:19 am

agreed nessie. he also suffers the same effect with his english, his grasp of english language is terrible, yet he thinks its better than it actually is.

thanks

rich

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Bob » Sun Mar 11, 2012 9:32 am

Always when somebody use ad hominems and attack non-relevant things, I know that opponent lacks arguments, good sign. Insulting of opponent because of his grammar is one of the very good signs.

To see how wrong these peoples are in their theory - yes, my english is very far from perfect, I know it, I agree, I can read Enlish without problem, but to actually write English, that´s the another issue, leaving aside that I often see my errors, but I don´t correct them. But how this is relevant to my arguments? In no way, for several first weeks, nobody bothered with my errors which dont affect my comments, they proved that they understand without problem. But a few users resorted to use this insult when they realized that they can´t adress arguments. I also see errors of other users here, but see no reason to insult them for this silly issue.

Rich England is propably still uncomfortable with the fact that I exposed his ridiculous "arguments" and lies, especially when he requested DNA tests of deported peoples to prove that they were really transited through the Treblinka. Just offended vanity.

And Nessie...no need to agian adress what is wrong.

Hans
Poster
Posts: 323
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:25 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Hans » Sun Mar 11, 2012 11:32 am

Bob wrote:
Hans wrote:
Bob wrote:
Nessie wrote:Sorry, you are not dismissing his evidence, but his description of the column refutes gassing and in any case it never existed. :?
Never existed, no documental trace (there should be, we have documents), no physical trace.
If you write this just hundreds times more, then (maybe!) some will start to believe you despite the strong testimonial, photographic, documentary and physical evidence.
Testimonial evidence for columns is contradicting and speask about nonsenses, some don´t speaks about them at all.

Show me photographic evidence of alleged column proving his existence, I am really curious.

Show me documentary evidence of column, hope you are not going to show again inventory list of Krema II, already refuted.

Physical evidence of column, great, show me.

What an interesting statements.
Bob,

you can grasp that I am referring to the entire complex device/openings/chimnies, which cannot be treated separately since they depend upon each other and are related to each other.

For instance, the fact that we can see the little chimnies on the February 1943 ground photographs strongly enhances the credibility of the testimonial accounts on the chimnies, but by association also the descriptions on the device. To say it more simple: if they got the fact right that there were chimnies on top of the roof than it is more likely they got also right what was attached to it below. On the other hand, if there were no chimnies, it would raise reasonable doubts about the reliability of the description of the device as well.

There exists indeed direct documentary evidence for the wire mesh gas introduction devices for crematorium 2, which - by the way - you have not "already refuted". They are listed in the transfer inventory of 31 March 1943 as 4 pieces of "wire-mesh insertion device". In the file they are incorrectly attributed to the undressing room, but it is clear from corroborating testimonial evidence (itself corroborated by physical and photographic evidence, recall what I explained in the previous paragraph) that it was switched between the lines and actually referred to the homicidal gas chamber, which is further supported by the fact that the previous entry in the document was also switched between the undressing room and the homicidal gas chamber.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Bob » Sun Mar 11, 2012 11:57 am

Hans wrote:
Bob wrote:
Hans wrote:
Bob wrote:
Nessie wrote:Sorry, you are not dismissing his evidence, but his description of the column refutes gassing and in any case it never existed. :?
Never existed, no documental trace (there should be, we have documents), no physical trace.
If you write this just hundreds times more, then (maybe!) some will start to believe you despite the strong testimonial, photographic, documentary and physical evidence.
Testimonial evidence for columns is contradicting and speask about nonsenses, some don´t speaks about them at all.

Show me photographic evidence of alleged column proving his existence, I am really curious.

Show me documentary evidence of column, hope you are not going to show again inventory list of Krema II, already refuted.

Physical evidence of column, great, show me.

What an interesting statements.
Bob,

you can grasp that I am referring to the entire complex device/openings/chimnies, which cannot be treated separately since they depend upon each other and are related to each other.
Problem is that me and Nessie, we discussed only Kula and columns, and you adressed it, so please, provide me with evidence, especially with photos and physical evidence of these columns.
For instance....
For chimneys, see previous comments, is proven that these are not your chimneys, please, don´t act like that this evidence is not here.

Testimonies, already adressed too.
There exists.....
Yes, so again this document, see previous comments and Muehlenkamp´s thread, I already adressed it.
On the other hand, if there were no chimnies, it would raise reasonable doubts about the reliability of the description of the device as well.
Here we go, your approach is extraordinary, you again don´t assume reasonable doubts about reliability of witnesses and accusations, you care only reliability of description, in the other words, without chimneys you are able to again tweak description of column to match your current version of your belief and then act like as if nothing has happened.

Hans
Poster
Posts: 323
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:25 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Hans » Sun Mar 11, 2012 12:08 pm

Bob wrote:
Hans wrote:The location is 4.1 m from the southern wall and 3.25 m from the western wall (in the original state).
Your hole 2 is 4.1m from the southern wall and 3.25m from the western hole in original state, ok. Here is your already flawed model used to "match" photo from Feb 1943 together with dimensions. I used as a final point edge of your chimney.
http://www.imagebam.com/image/6a31a9179111951" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

11,15m from the southern wall.
4,4m from the western wall.
Yes, I provided the wrong distances for opening 2. What I posted were actually the distances of opening number 1 and taken from the outer walls.

The correct coordinates for opening 2 are 4.75 m from the outer west wall and 11.50 m from the outer south wall.

Hans
Poster
Posts: 323
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:25 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Hans » Sun Mar 11, 2012 12:23 pm

Bob wrote: For chimneys, see previous comments, is proven that these are not your chimneys, please, don´t act like that this evidence is not here.
You did not prove that these are not the chimnies. I have no doubt that you think that you have done so, but there is major difference between what you feel you have shown in your postings, and what you actually do.
Testimonies, already adressed too.
You have never properly addressed any witness testimony, even if you believe it yourself.

Yes, so again this document, see previous comments and Muehlenkamp´s thread, I already adressed it.
The last time I checked in the thread, you did not well address the document. Please provide a quote where you have done so and we can talk about it.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Bob » Sun Mar 11, 2012 1:03 pm

Hans wrote:
Bob wrote:
Hans wrote:The location is 4.1 m from the southern wall and 3.25 m from the western wall (in the original state).
Your hole 2 is 4.1m from the southern wall and 3.25m from the western hole in original state, ok. Here is your already flawed model used to "match" photo from Feb 1943 together with dimensions. I used as a final point edge of your chimney.
http://www.imagebam.com/image/6a31a9179111951" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

11,15m from the southern wall.
4,4m from the western wall.
Yes, I provided the wrong distances for opening 2. What I posted were actually the distances of opening number 1 and taken from the outer walls.

The correct coordinates for opening 2 are 4.75 m from the outer west wall and 11.50 m from the outer south wall.
Ok, now your model match with your distances.
Hans wrote:You did not prove that these are not the chimnies.
I proved it, but you refused to adress it, my dodged (by you/others) comments are here

http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 16#p274137" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 40#p274257" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 16#p274141" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 16#p274167" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Feel free to refute "my" (revisionist) arguments, where is your problem? You said "You did not prove that these are not the chimnies", do you think this is an argument? Show what is wrong with revisonist arguments, refute them and back up your statement. Do I also need to show you your logical fallacy approach? You did not prove that these objects are chimneys so your sentence "You did not prove that these are not the chimnies" is logical fallacy, you must first prove that objects are chimneys, then you can complain about somebody who is trying to prove that objects are not chimneys.

But what is worse for you, revisionists proved that the objects are not alleged chimneys even despite the fact that you did not prove that the obejcts are chimneys.
You have never properly addressed any witness testimony, even if you believe it yourself.
Again, the same situation as above - "You have never properly addressed any witness testimony" - show your arguments to back up this statement, my quotes are here/there, now it is time for your turn.
The last time I checked, you did not properly address the document. So please provide a quote where you have done so.
Interesting, just my first response, see:

Feb 26, 2012 - You propably mean "Drahtnetzeinschiebevorrichtung” and “Holzblenden”, these things refers to Leichenkeller 2 (alleged undressing room) as clearly can be seen on this document.
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 40#p272742" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It is that easy, they dont belongs to alleged gas chamber as can be seen from the document. In the same document - invetory list of Krema III:

Feb 26, 2012 - these things are not in inventory protocol of Krema III
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 40#p272823" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Simple.

And I am still waiting to show me hole 2 and 3 on provided photos, hope you are not going to dodge even this, because this is the subject of your thread.

RICH-ENGLAND
Poster
Posts: 270
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2011 8:20 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by RICH-ENGLAND » Sun Mar 11, 2012 1:55 pm

Bob wrote:Always when somebody use ad hominems and attack non-relevant things, I know that opponent lacks arguments, good sign. Insulting of opponent because of his grammar is one of the very good signs.

To see how wrong these peoples are in their theory - yes, my english is very far from perfect, I know it, I agree, I can read Enlish without problem, but to actually write English, that´s the another issue, leaving aside that I often see my errors, but I don´t correct them. But how this is relevant to my arguments? In no way, for several first weeks, nobody bothered with my errors which dont affect my comments, they proved that they understand without problem. But a few users resorted to use this insult when they realized that they can´t adress arguments. I also see errors of other users here, but see no reason to insult them for this silly issue.

Rich England is propably still uncomfortable with the fact that I exposed his ridiculous "arguments" and lies, especially when he requested DNA tests of deported peoples to prove that they were really transited through the Treblinka. Just offended vanity.
point proven, my mentioning of your english has nothing to do with grammar or errors, its the fact that at times youre incoherent, dont make snese and do not understand what people are saying.

you didnt expose any such lies or ridiculous arguments, you just proved what a disingenuos retard you are....

its been hilarious watching these threads seeing you being taken apart, you moan constantly about dodging yet youre by far the biggest dodger in here, you failed to answer mr meulenkamps questions over and over and were so bothered by them you had to try and twist his thread into a thread about holes...

you are only calling my questions/arguments ridiculous because you cant answer them, you cant prove transit camp and cant show that any jews were transited out alive and well, and thats a fact.

you keep making up ficticious and fallacious arguments to call people liars, and you make stupid excuses such as "wall of text, too much" to avoid addressing points that you cant answer.

thanks

rich

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Bob » Sun Mar 11, 2012 3:31 pm

RICH-ENGLAND wrote:point proven, my mentioning of your english has nothing to do with grammar or errors, its the fact that at times youre incoherent, dont make snese and do not understand what people are saying.
I think that you really believe that you proved something, only the evidence for your belief is missing.
dont make snese and do not understand what people are saying.
The main thing is, that your comment make "snese" (is tha correct in English? - be hoist by one's own petard)
you just proved what a disingenuos retard you are....
More ad hominems.
its been hilarious watching these threads seeing you being taken apart, you moan constantly about dodging yet youre by far the biggest dodger in here, you failed to answer mr meulenkamps questions over and over and were so bothered by them you had to try and twist his thread into a thread about holes...
Interesting claim, but not true, everybody can read it. Let see one simple demonstration of how this user Rich England is wrong - can you quote here (or in relevant thread) just one single dodged question?
you had to try and twist his thread into a thread about holes...
This another lie from this dishonest user, I proved with my quotes, that I requested to join my thread to post evidence for different topic, but Mr. Muehlenkamp decied on his own to not post it to my thread, he ignored my recommendations, and he posted it to his own thread and he himself twisted subject of his own thread, Here are the proofs. Rich England also ignore that Mr. Muehlenkamp diverted subject of his own thread after a few comments. In fact, already Nessie tried this accusation, but failed thanks to my proofs.
...or ridiculous arguments...

you are only calling my questions/arguments ridiculous because you cant answer them, you cant prove transit camp and cant show that any jews were transited out alive and well, and thats a fact.
Let see what is in quoted thread:

Rich England - prove to me that 10 jews moved on from trblinka and re settled somewhere, i want photos or video, records from the camp and where they went after, and dna evidence?

Bob - no DNA profiling existed at that time, first DNA profiling test is reported in 1984 (here is user Rich England especially ridiculous and had not enough honesty to admit this utter nonsense.)
-videos gain, did not exist at this time (same as above)
-records were provided in the thread, but you ignore it, I already informed you
-photos, sorry, but there was no need to take photos of every prisoner in each camp after each transit, your demand is again absurd. (Rich England wants to see something what can´t even exist)

So did I call his arguments ridiculous without a reason? No, I had very good reasons, because such a nonsenses are really ridiculous as pointed out especially in connection with "DNA" request.
you didnt expose any such lies
Really? Rich is obviously uncomfortable with this:
Jan 19, 2012 6:00 am
iive already told you many many many times that im neither a believer nor a denier....

Jan 19, 2012 6:33 am
i have no stance on the holocaust

Jan 19, 2012 2:45 pm
BUT the holocaust did happen...
So Rich finally became a believer in Jan 19, 2:45 pm, or he simply lied twice on the same day in Jan 19, 6:00 am and 6:33 am.

I had no problem, to clarify my position when I first time said that holocaust could happen even without these three points, because some source/s dates holocaust to year 1933 or 1935 (Nuremberg laws) and I said this from my point o view and these sources and not from the point of view of definiton from wikipedia, but when Rich was pissed off that "definition from wiki" is clear, I had no problem to clarify my position to say that I don´t believe in definition he provided to me.

But Rich have big problems with everything what proves him wrong.

The big difference between me and Rich England is that I always back up my statements in which I accuse someone from lying. No surprise that he left the thread and did not explain it, now he came out after some time and started to insults me again in hope that his nonsenses are in memory hole.

Finally, Rich proved himself that he is the one who twisted thread when he started to adress my English and now the discussion is total off topic.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3073
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Nessie » Sun Mar 11, 2012 4:37 pm

Bob wrote:
......
you didnt expose any such lies
Really? Rich is obviously uncomfortable with this:
Jan 19, 2012 6:00 am
iive already told you many many many times that im neither a believer nor a denier....

Jan 19, 2012 6:33 am
i have no stance on the holocaust

Jan 19, 2012 2:45 pm
BUT the holocaust did happen...
So Rich finally became a believer in Jan 19, 2:45 pm, or he simply lied twice on the same day in Jan 19, 6:00 am and 6:33 am.

......
Classic Bob. Rich has made his position clear, he is neither believer nor a denier, he does believe in the Holocaust, but on exactly what happened he has no specific position (which is a good position for a true sceptic to have). I understand that, anyone else should understand that, except Bob, who takes out tiny parts of the whole of what Rick has said and then claims Rick is a lair. This is you, Bob not seeing the wood for the trees and willfully (or maybe not, maybe you think such is not a twist at all) twisting what people have really said.

Bob, you were very reluctant to classify revisionist and denier in the thread about whether they are anti-semtic or not. But very keep to try and classify Rich and then use that to try and make out he is a liar.

That you are happy with such a poor form of debate and that you think you have make a sound structured argument shows why it is so difficult to debate with you at times.

It has been the same with your inability to grasp the concept of missing persons as potential evidence, the nonsense claim of yours that missing evidence is proof of a crime and your over simplistic stance that physical evidence trumps witness evidence.

Sorry Hans for going off topic here, but Bob's attitude and debating ability really needs to be taken to task.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

Hans
Poster
Posts: 323
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:25 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Hans » Sun Mar 11, 2012 5:22 pm

Bob wrote:
Hans wrote:You did not prove that these are not the chimnies.
I proved it, but you refused to adress it, my dodged (by you/others) comments are here

http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 16#p274137" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 40#p274257" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 16#p274141" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 16#p274167" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Feel free to refute "my" (revisionist) arguments, where is your problem? You said "You did not prove that these are not the chimnies", do you think this is an argument? Show what is wrong with revisonist arguments, refute them and back up your statement.
Bob,

I did address and discuss your arguments on the chimnies in my previous postings here as well as at CODOH. You should not commit the mistake to think that if you have the last word (formally!), then you also had the last and best argument. In my case for instance, if I skip a comment of you then it is usually because it is repetitive and was already addressed by me or it is too obvious a weak point I don't consider necessary to comment andlack the time or I don't consider your comment relevant. Or I am just tired of reading your not very pleasant style of discussion.

As I mentioned, there is a large discrepancy between what you think you have shown or proven, and what you have done in practice. I will give you an illustration of this point from this thread exactly on the little chimnies. You claim in your recent posting that "for chimneys, see previous comments, is proven that these are not your chimneys".

You are probably referring to Mattogno's sketch on the February 1943 ground photograph, on which you explained:

"Third picture is from Carlo Mattogno, perspective line prove that objects are located on eastern half of the roof, so this again contradict your theory. "

I replied to this as follows:

"Mattogno's sketch does not show the objects are on the eastern side of the basement. He simply estimated the outline of the basement even though especially its south-eastern corner is not properly distinguishable. In contrast, Mazal et al. have matched an entire model of the basement including the crematorium main building with the photograph, which is a much more robust approach."

To which you replied:

"This is not true of course, see it again, take a look on whatever version you want, everytime with using perspective line, the objects are on the eastern half of the roof, everybody can do it self, you can´t cheat perspective."

You did not at all address my argument. I've argued that in order to know the central line of the basement and so decide where the objects are in relation to the center, it is necessary to know the exact the outline of the basement. Now, the basement is pretty blurry on photograph, especially the southern and edge and the south-eastern corner. From this perspective, even small variations of southern edge make huge difference where the objects are on the roof. If you shift Mattogno's proposed south edge by 2 or 3 pixels, which is readily possible given that the outline is not clear, the object 1 suddenly appears on the left side of the building. Indeed, if you compare Mattogno's sketch with Mazal et al.'s model and match with the photograph, it is apparent that Mattogno has underestimated the height of the southern edge.

The second argument was that Mazal et al.'s approach was more robust and less prone to errors because a number of features such as a windows of the crematorium had to match with the photograph. They did not have the degree of freedom Mattogno had in his construction to adjust the poorly visible southern edge. Once they matched the windows, the position of the basement was given. Therefore their result that the chimney 1 is on the western side of the building seems to be more reliable than Mattogno's opposite claim.

Instead of addressing my actual argument and providing some new insights and food for the thoughts, you just claimed that "this is not true of course" and just repeated what you already said. And then you wonder why I just skip your remark?

[skip deceptive and self-exposing comment on logic]
Interesting, just my first response, see:

Feb 26, 2012 - You propably mean "Drahtnetzeinschiebevorrichtung” and “Holzblenden”, these things refers to Leichenkeller 2 (alleged undressing room) as clearly can be seen on this document.
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 40#p272742" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It is that easy, they dont belongs to alleged gas chamber as can be seen from the document.
Bob, exactly this argument was anticipated and already addressed in my previous posting:

"In the file they are incorrectly attributed to the undressing room, but it is clear from corroborating testimonial evidence (itself corroborated by physical and photographic evidence, recall what I explained in the previous paragraph) that it was switched between the lines and actually referred to the homicidal gas chamber, which is further supported by the fact that the previous entry in the document was also switched between the undressing room and the homicidal gas chamber."

Instead of discussing what I have argued, you have now repeated the same argument that I have just taken care of here. You start seeing the pattern in your debate style?
In the same document - invetory list of Krema III:

Feb 26, 2012 - these things are not in inventory protocol of Krema III
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 40#p272823" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
That's a weak argument, too.

We are talking about crematorium 2. The fact that the device does not appear on the crematorium 3 handover inventory does not show that the device listed in the crematorium 2 handover inventory was not for introducing the gas into the basement. At best, the document can show that there was no such device in crematorium 3 at least at the time of the document, in June 1943. Either because there was no homicidal gas chamber in the crematorium 3 (very unlikely) or because the devices were not yet finished.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Bob » Sun Mar 11, 2012 5:50 pm

Nessie wrote:
Bob wrote:
......
you didnt expose any such lies
Really? Rich is obviously uncomfortable with this:
Jan 19, 2012 6:00 am
iive already told you many many many times that im neither a believer nor a denier....

Jan 19, 2012 6:33 am
i have no stance on the holocaust

Jan 19, 2012 2:45 pm
BUT the holocaust did happen...
So Rich finally became a believer in Jan 19, 2:45 pm, or he simply lied twice on the same day in Jan 19, 6:00 am and 6:33 am.

......
Classic Bob. Rich has made his position clear, he is neither believer nor a denier, he does believe in the Holocaust, but on exactly what happened he has no specific position...
Here you again with your logic, "he does believe in holocaust, but he is not believer". But according to you or Rich England I am denier because I do not believe in holocaust so normal logic says "Rich must be believer when he does believe in holocaust, because Bob does not believe in holocaust and is denier" but not in Nessie´s bizzare world of absurd logic.

You again proved that your claims are really nonsenses.

The rest of your comment is another ad hominem.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3073
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Nessie » Sun Mar 11, 2012 6:03 pm

Rich, and I say the Holocaust did happen, but we are not out and out believers as we are unsure or do not believe some of the believer claims. You on the other had have made it clear you are best described as a denier. And this

"Rich must be believer when he does believe in holocaust, because Bob does not believe in holocaust and is denier"

is not logic.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Bob » Sun Mar 11, 2012 7:15 pm

Hans wrote: Bob,

I did address and discuss your arguments on the chimnies in my previous postings here as well as at CODOH. You should not commit the mistake to think that if you have the last word (formally!), then you also had the last and best argument. In my case for instance, if I skip a comment of you then it is usually because it is repetitive and was already addressed by me or it is too obvious a weak point I don't consider necessary to comment andlack the time or I don't consider your comment relevant. Or I am just tired of reading your not very pleasant style of discussion.
Try to write something relevant to subject please.
Hans wrote: Let us see, you are probably referring to Mattogno's sketch on the February 1943 ground photograph, on which you explained:
Not only to this, also the different dimensions prove it, but you ignore it.
Hans wrote:As I mentioned, there is a large discrepancy between what you think you have shown or proven, and what you have done in practice. I will give you an illustration of this point from this thread exactly on the little chimnies. You claim in your recent posting that

"For chimneys, see previous comments, is proven that these are not your chimneys"

It is proven? Let us see, you are probably referring to Mattogno's sketch on the February 1943 ground photograph, on which you explained:

"Third picture is from Carlo Mattogno, perspective line prove that objects are located on eastern half of the roof, so this again contradict your theory. "

I replied to this as follows:

"Mattogno's sketch does not show the objects are on the eastern side of the basement. He simply estimated the outline of the basement even though especially its south-eastern corner is not properly distinguishable. In contrast, Mazal et al. have matched an entire model of the basement including the crematorium main building with the photograph, which is a much more robust approach."
Wrong, where is your evidence for this statement? Or double standard? Outline is distinguishable to prove Hans´s argument, but not enough distinguishable to prove Mattogno´s argument? Demonstrate and back your claim, simple, you did not show anything, with saying: he is wrong - you did not present any argument, you must back it up. Also Rudolfs version is better quality, feel free to use it, simple.

Mazal? I already proved that your model, his model and photo does not match, and your models are different too. You ignore it, but comparisons are in mentioned comments, I also proved your cheats with migrating holes in these comments. Here is their model and south-east corner, black line marks the best distinguishable sout-east corner in their version of this photo, as you can see, totally off with their model and same for the rest, do you think I am blind or dumb or what?

What you write is simply not true, and I repeatedly demonstrated it but you decided to ignore it.
Hans wrote:To which you replied:

"This is not true of course, see it again, take a look on whatever version you want, everytime with using perspective line, the objects are on the eastern half of the roof, everybody can do it self, you can´t cheat perspective."

You did not at all address my argument. I've argued that in order to know the central line of the basement and so decide where the objects are in relation to the center, it is necessary to know the exact the outline of the basement. Now, the basement is pretty blurry on photograph, especially the southern and edge and the south-eastern corner. From this perspective, even small variations of southern edge make huge difference where the objects are on the roof. If you shift Mattogno's proposed south edge by 2 or 3 pixels, which is readily possible given that the outline is not clear, the object 1 suddenly appears on the left side of the building. Indeed, if you compare Mattogno's sketch with Mazal et al.'s model and match with the photograph, it is apparent that Mattogno has underestimated the height of the southern edge.
Hm, see above.
The second argument was that Mazal et al.'s approach was more robust and less prone to errors because a number of features such as a windows of the crematorium had to match with the photograph. They did not have the degree of freedom Mattogno had in his construction to adjust the poorly visible southern edge. Once they matched the windows, the position of the basement was given. Therefore their result that the chimney 1 is on the western side of the building seems to be more reliable than Mattogno's opposite claim.
As again proven, you are wrong, see above.
Instead of addressing my actual argument and providing some new insights and food for the thoughts, you just claimed that "this is not true of course" and just repeated what you already said. And then you wonder why I just skip your remark?
Again, wrong, I provided you with demonstrations and comparisons instead of claims with zero value. No, I dont wonder, I clearly see why you skipped it.
Hans wrote:
Bob wrote: Interesting, just my first response, see:

Feb 26, 2012 - You propably mean "Drahtnetzeinschiebevorrichtung” and “Holzblenden”, these things refers to Leichenkeller 2 (alleged undressing room) as clearly can be seen on this document.
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 40#p272742" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It is that easy, they dont belongs to alleged gas chamber as can be seen from the document.
Bob, exactly this argument was anticipated and already addressed in my previous posting:

"In the file they are incorrectly attributed to the undressing room, but it is clear from corroborating testimonial evidence (itself corroborated by physical and photographic evidence, recall what I explained in the previous paragraph) that it was switched between the lines and actually referred to the homicidal gas chamber, which is further supported by the fact that the previous entry in the document was also switched between the undressing room and the homicidal gas chamber."
Your repeated already flawed testimonial evidence, I proved with quotes, that these testimonies don´t corroborate, why you still repeat it when I showed that this illusion of convergence is wrong?

Photographic evidence, see above, your only photo is not evidence for chimneys but against chimneys. And of course, from you is weird to say that this photo shows evidence for columns, because I see no columns, simple, you can use it only for your chimney theory, that´s all.

Where is your evidence for switched lines? Only the line with faucets/taps is switched, so what are you talking about?

And where is your physical evidence for columns as you said?
Instead of discussing what I have argued, you have now repeated the same argument that I have just taken care of here. You start seeing the pattern in your debate style?
But you described your style and not mine, I showed you that you are wrong, but you just don´t care, you still repeat it again and again as if nothing has happened.
Hans wrote:
Bob wrote:In the same document - invetory list of Krema III:

Feb 26, 2012 - these things are not in inventory protocol of Krema III
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 40#p272823" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
We are talking about crematorium 2.
Good, this was only a little trap from me, I only wanted to demonstrate your double standard approach when you have no problem to use "evidence" from Krema III to support your Krema II theory, see for example your Shaul Chazan or Josef Sackar testimony about Krema III. So Hans can use Krema III, Bob can´t use Krema III, "logical"

You again omittted most of my arguments and i still wait for the holes.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Bob » Sun Mar 11, 2012 7:21 pm

Nessie wrote:Rich, and I say the Holocaust did happen, but we are not out and out believers as we are unsure or do not believe some of the believer claims. You on the other had have made it clear you are best described as a denier. And this

"Rich must be believer when he does believe in holocaust, because Bob does not believe in holocaust and is denier"

is not logic.
Holocaust did happen = you are not a believer.
Holocaust did not happen = your are a denier.

:roll:

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3073
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Nessie » Sun Mar 11, 2012 7:30 pm

Bob wrote:
Nessie wrote:Rich, and I say the Holocaust did happen, but we are not out and out believers as we are unsure or do not believe some of the believer claims. You on the other had have made it clear you are best described as a denier. And this

"Rich must be believer when he does believe in holocaust, because Bob does not believe in holocaust and is denier"

is not logic.
Holocaust did happen = you are not a believer.
Holocaust did not happen = your are a denier.

:roll:
Bob, here is some of the wood you fail to spot when looking at the trees -

Holocaust did happen, but not fully as the orthodox history would have it, but it does include use of homicidal gas chambers = Rich and Nessie and others. (Appologies to Rich if that is not his position)

Holocaust did happen, but not like the orthodox history would have it and there were no homicidal gas chambers = revisionism as it is generally understood to be

Holocaust, not sure about it , still looking at the evidnece = undecided

Your idea is black and white, mine is a far more realsitic shades of gray.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Bob » Sun Mar 11, 2012 7:36 pm

Nessie wrote:Your idea is black and white, mine is a far more realsitic shades of gray.
Your idea is primarily completely flawed, here is definition provided by your pal, by Rich himself from wikipedia.
lmao. this is hilarious, do you even know what the holocaust is?

The Holocaust(from the Greek ὁλόκαυστοςholókaustos: hólos, "whole" and kaustós, "burnt"),[2]also known as the Shoah(Hebrew: השואה, HaShoah, "catastrophe"; Yiddish: חורבן, Churbenor Hurban,[3]from the Hebrew for "destruction"), was the genocide of approximately six million European Jews during World War II, a programme of systematic state-sponsored murder by Nazi Germany, led by Adolf Hitler, throughout Nazi-occupied territory

http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 00#p268182" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Do you believe in approx. 6 millions exterminated Jews?
Do you believe in a programme of systematic state-sponsored murder?

Yes? Then you believe in holocaust and you are a believer.
Your idea is black and white
Tell me what is my idea, I am curious.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3073
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Nessie » Sun Mar 11, 2012 8:08 pm

Replied to here http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 46#p274646" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; to stop the diverting of this thread.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3073
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Nessie » Sun Mar 11, 2012 8:17 pm

There is no definitive answer as to where the holes were (or not as the case may be). There are no original plans showing holes, the physical evidence has been very badly damaged and maybe/probably tampered with but there are signs of holes being there, there are contradicting photos where there are and are not chimneys and there are the vague arial photos of the roof with marks that appear and disappear.

For the revisionist/denier side to say that the other side is maybe a few inches out on where they say there was, or was not a hole seems pretty irrelevant to me. The argument of; there were no holes and where you say they were holes is out by a few inches is also somewhat contradictory.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Bob » Sun Mar 11, 2012 8:39 pm

Nessie wrote:There is no definitive answer as to where the holes were (or not as the case may be). There are no original plans showing holes
So no holes.
the physical evidence has been very badly damaged and maybe/probably tampered with but there are signs of holes being there
Signs or presence of holes is irrelevant, I am interested in introduction holes, you still have no idea what is going on here in this subject.
there are contradicting photos where there are and are not chimneys and there are the vague arial photos of the roof with marks that appear and disappear.
No matter if the marks appear and then disappear, in both case, no holes, no chimneys.
For the revisionist/denier side to say that the other side is maybe a few inches out on where they say there was, or was not a hole seems pretty irrelevant to me.
Few inches out, hm, again, strawman.
The argument of; there were no holes and where you say they were holes is out by a few inches is also somewhat contradictory.
It appear to you as contradictionary, because you still have no clue about the subject, because we are not talking about holes, but about introduction holes. Few inches, again the same strawman.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3073
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Nessie » Sun Mar 11, 2012 8:49 pm

Here is one of your comparisons

http://www.imagebam.com/image/126f03178222392" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

How far out is one model from the other in terms of where the chimney/holes are supposed to be? Please give a measurement for each one top to bottom.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Bob » Sun Mar 11, 2012 9:17 pm

Nessie wrote:Here is one of your comparisons

http://www.imagebam.com/image/126f03178222392" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

How far out is one model from the other in terms of where the chimney/holes are supposed to be? Please give a measurement for each one top to bottom.
Photo Aug 25 1944
Chimney 4 is off cca 70cm
Chimney 3 is off cca 70cm
Chimneys 1-2 are off cca 30cm

Photo May 31 1944
Chimney 4 is off cca 20cm
Chimney 3 is off cca 100cm
Chimney 2 is off cca 20cm
Chimney 1 is off cca 10cm

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3073
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Nessie » Mon Mar 12, 2012 2:25 am

So between 4 and 40 inches on a roof how many feet square?
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Bob » Mon Mar 12, 2012 9:09 am

Roof is 248 square meters.

Hans
Poster
Posts: 323
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:25 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Hans » Mon Mar 12, 2012 9:57 am

Nessie wrote:Here is one of your comparisons

http://www.imagebam.com/image/126f03178222392" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

How far out is one model from the other in terms of where the chimney/holes are supposed to be? Please give a measurement for each one top to bottom.
Nessie,

The location of the three openings, which have been identified in the ruins, can only be estimated with some error bars due to the collapse, destruction, folding of the roof. For opening number 4 (the northern most or most top opening in the photograph you linked), Mazal et al. give an error bar of 1 m in north-south direction. The location of the other two have been determined with higher accuracy apparently. Opening number 3 has not been uncovered yet, so it's projected location can only be estimated based on the pattern of the other openings, the February 1943 ground photograph, the aerial photographs and by exclusion principle in the present ruin. In short, there is some uncertainty with respect to the measurements, especially for opening number 3 and 4.

The model Bob has labeled "Hans's [sic] model February 19 2012 was done in 2011 or 2010 by me with a CAD program for mechanical engineering. In this model I assumed that the location of opening number 3 was equidistant between opening number 2 and opening number 4. In the second model Bob has labeled "Hans's [sic] model March 04 2012" I followed the suggestion of Mazal et al. that the opening number 3 is located more close to opening number 4 than to opening number 2. This explains why there is a relatively large difference between both models with respect to opening number 3 in Bob's overlapping of the images. Why there is also a large difference with respect to opening 4, I don't know. It is possible that I put a wrong value for its distance from the southern slab in the earlier model or exhausted Mazal et al.'s error bar for this distance. I don't have access to the raw file anymore, so I cannot check it.

Generally, it should be noted that the black spots on the aerial photographs are not exclusively the gas introduction chimnies, they are mainly discoloration or objects RELATED to the gas introduction chimnies. That's a big difference, because it means that the center of the spots (or given their irregularity, the darkest part) does not necessarily has to match with the center of the gas chimney.