Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Discussions
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 10:14 am

Bob wrote:Roof is 248 square meters.
The roof as seen from aerial perspective is about 244 m². The northern wall is embedded in the crematorium main building and does not contribute to the length of the roof.

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 10:35 am

Hans wrote:
Bob wrote:Roof is 248 square meters.
The roof as seen from aerial perspective is about 244 m². The northern wall is embedded in the crematorium main building and does not contribute to the length of the roof.
Your roof on your model is 248 m², that was the point.

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 1:16 pm

Bob, that Hans and others are having to estimate where the holes are because of the destruction of the roof and that there is a small degree of disagreement between some of the measurements proves what?

(Thanks for providing your calculations)
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 1:31 pm

Nessie wrote:Bob, that Hans and others are having to estimate where the holes are because of the destruction of the roof and that there is a small degree of disagreement between some of the measurements proves what?

(Thanks for providing your calculations)
This is not small disagreement :roll:

Firstly, this prove that they don´t know this basic "fact" where they are even after almost 70 years and with the all alleged "evidence."

Secondly, this prove how they are moving them to match they current argumentation, just cheats. I already said it. Here is model and picture from Hans
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y94/Ro ... /new-2.png" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He moved chimney 3 closer to chimney 4, because otherwise this chimney would be partly visible in photo and not hidden behind the train smokestack as they or Hans claims. But because both models are flawed as I demonstrated, no surprise they don´t match with the photo at all as I already demonstrated too, everything is in my previous comments.

I still wait for Hans to adress my points, especially to show me hole 3 and hole 2 on photos I provided to him some two days ago.. (note - photos are not mine)
Last edited by Bob on Mon Mar 12, 2012 1:39 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 » Mon Mar 12, 2012 1:39 pm

Bob wrote:
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?
Bob,

you are again not discussing my actual argument. Instead you ask for "evidence" (which is at least a progress for you), but you don't explain what part of the argument requires evidence and why:

That Mattogno has derived the central line from the outline of the basement? This is obvious from his construction and does not require evidence.

That the photograph is blurry? This is self-evident from the photo (or the fact that Mattogno and Rudolf had to manipulate the photograph, something not nessecary if the photo was not that blurry).

That Mazal et al. have modeled the entire building? This is clear from their paper.

That matching a complete model with a blurry photo is less prone to error than seeking the outline of a basement on a blurry photo? This follows from the lesser degree of freedom involved in the model method.
Or double standard? Outline is distinguishable to prove Hans´s argument, but not enough distinguishable to prove Mattogno´s argument?
You have argued in this thread that Mattogno has proven that both objects are on the eastern half of the basement, just by seeking for the central line on top of a blurry basement. The argument is already flawed: The fact that the basement is blurry on the photograph excludes a rigorous proof where the objects are located. A blurry basement and a precise and certain determination of the outline of the basement without any other evidence exclude each other. At best, one can approximately estimate the outline. An approximate estimation of the outline does, however, not result in a rigorous proof where the objects are located.

The February 1943 ground photograph itself does not prove the existence of the solid chimnies or where they are located. The photograph is simply too blurry. However, if combined with other evidence, namely a) a model of the building, b) physical evidence, c) aerial photographic evidence and d) testimonial evidence, it can be concluded that the objects are most likely the gas introduction chimnies on top of the gas introduction openings on top of the gas introduction column.

I already proved that your model, his model and photo does not match, and your models are different too.
It is irrelevant whether my model matches exactly the photo and Mazal et al.'s model. As I explained already in the first posting of this thread, this model was only roughly scaled. Since I did not claim I scaled and oriented my model with very high precision, it is likely there has to be some small mismatch. The large mismatch of chimney 3 is simply because I placed it differently (further south). The reason I placed it differently was because its position is not clearly defined by physical evidence.

Your claim that you would have proven that Mazal et al.'s model and the ground photograph do not match, is false. You have only shown that your assumed south-east edge of the basement does not correspond to their model. If anything, this suggests that YOUR own assumption is incorrect. The fact that you had to make an assumption where the south-east edge actually is (and it is nothing but an assumption), already shows that there is no way how you can prove anything with this method, since you will have to show that your assumption is correct to begin with, something (I predict, but you are invited to prove me wrong) virtually impossible in the light of the blurry photograph.

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 1:51 pm

Bob wrote: Firstly, this prove that they don´t know this basic "fact" where they are even after almost 70 years and with the all alleged "evidence."
Facts can only be established with the accuracy allowed by the evidence. In this case, for instance the destruction of the basement or blurry photographs limit the accuracy.
Secondly, this prove how they are moving them to match they current argumentation, just cheats. I already said it. Here is model and picture from Hans
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y94/Ro ... /new-2.png" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He moved chimney 3 closer to chimney 4, because otherwise this chimney would be partly visible in photo and not hidden behind the train smokestack as they or Hans claims. But because both models are flawed as I demonstrated, no surprise they don´t match with the photo at all as I already demonstrated too, everything is in my previous comments.
The projected location of opening 3 is not exactly defined yet (because its approximate location is not readily accessible), therefore - in a model - it can be varied within certain limits as allowed and suggested by other evidence. In this case, the February 1943 photograph indicates that the chimney number 3 (which existence follows from testimonial and aerial photographic evidence) is located in a way that it is at least partly hidden by the smokestack. Drawing assumptions and conclusions from evidence is only "cheating" in Bob's little world.

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 2:26 pm

Bob wrote:
I still wait for Hans to adress my points, especially to show me hole 3 and hole 2 on photos I provided to him some two days ago.. (note - photos are not mine)
You have already located the area of opening 3 yourself.

The published close-ups of opening number 2 do not show the surroundings, so that I cannot readily see where exactly this is on the fuzzy photo you posted.

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 2:40 pm

Hans wrote:This is obvious from his construction and does not require evidence.
In the other words, you refused to demonstrate where Mattogno is wrong as you claim and you refused to back up yopur claim, and you used another zero-value claim "This is obvious....and does not require evidence" in the other words, the same nonsense used when somebody is trying to prove gassing.

Sorry, just zero value.
(or the fact that Mattogno and Rudolf had to manipulate the photograph, something not nessecary if the photo was not that blurry).
Did i understand you correctly that according to you Mattogno or Rudolf manipulated the photo? If yes, your evidence for this serious accusation is where?
That Mazal et al. have modeled the entire building? This is clear from their paper.

That matching a complete model with a blurry photo is less prone to error than seeking the outline of a basement on a blurry photo? This follows from the lesser degree of freedom involved in the model method.
I did not claim that they did not model building, read my comment and relevant part again.
You have argued in this thread that Mattogno has proven that both objects are on the eastern half of the basement, just by seeking for the central line on top of a blurry basement. The argument is already flawed: The fact that the basement is blurry on the photograph excludes a rigorous proof where the objects are located. A blurry basement and a precise and certain determination of the outline of the basement without any other evidence exclude each other. At best, one can approximately estimate the outline. An approximate estimation of the outline does, however, not result in a rigorous proof where the objects are located.
I have no problem with the photo, is good enough and not as you claim, I demonstrated it several times, is obvious what are you trying. But if you really insist on that, then we must refuse your and Mattogno´s argument, simple, you have no proof of chimneys because according to you, photo is bad, no double standard.
The February 1943 ground photograph itself does not prove the existence of the solid chimnies or where they are located. The photograph is simply too blurry.
Wrong, I already demonstrated it, outline is visible and your models are completely off, don´t repeat it and don´t ignore it.

Objects are visible, their dimensions too, are different, so not your chimneys, already demonstrated, you ignored it.

Here is citation from your source from your report

The correlation is unmistakable; from the photograph, sizes can be estimated almost to the centimeter. Perhaps this point is best made with an overlay of the photograph by a wireframe showing a skeletal view of the building and gas chamber.

You are trying just some damage control, but you are refused even by your own source, for them, photo is ok.
However, if combined with other evidence, namely a) a model of the building, b) physical evidence, c) aerial photographic evidence and d) testimonial evidence, it can be concluded that the objects are most likely the gas introduction chimnies on top of the gas introduction openings on top of the gas introduction column.
Your posts are repetitive.

a)both models are off even in basic lines, don´t match morgue, already adressed.
b)physical evidence, already adressed.
c)no aerial photo shown here from you. (I do not count used photos in my demonstrations to prove migration of your holes)
d)testimonies adressed.
It is irrelevant whether my model matches exactly the photo and Mazal et al.'s model.
Here we ago, i proved you wrong, but this is irrelevant and you continue as if nothing has happened, same with Richard Green/ Rudolf.
As I explained already in the first posting of this thread, this model was only roughly scaled. Since I did not claim I scaled and oriented my model with very high precision, it is likely there has to be some small mismatch. The large mismatch of chimney 3 is simply because I placed it differently (further south). The reason I placed it differently was because its position is not clearly defined by physical evidence.
Sorry, but htis is another trick, you claim that your model is not properly scaled and oriented to make an impression that if properly scaled and oriented, everything will match. Demonstrate it or stop with these false claims.
Your claim that you would have proven that Mazal et al.'s model and the ground photograph do not match, is false.
This is of course untrue and no wonder you again did not present any argument, here is their picture, they proved it themselves, it does not match, simple.
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... -final.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
You have only shown that your assumed south-east edge of the basement does not correspond to their model.If anything, this suggests that YOUR own assumption is incorrect. The fact that you had to make an assumption where the south-east edge actually is (and it is nothing but an assumption), already shows that there is no way how you can prove anything with this method, since you will have to show that your assumption is correct to begin with, something (I predict, but you are invited to prove me wrong) virtually impossible in the light of the blurry photograph.
Another absolutely wrong claim, and I must say, outrageous dishonest statement, here is again picture. As can be seen, I didn´t assume anything, I used it correctly.
Image
Facts can only be established with the accuracy allowed by the evidence. In this case, for instance the destruction of the basement or blurry photographs limit the accuracy.
See above.

If you mean it seriously, then you must refuse your own evidence, because is too damaged, to bad to allow some conclusion, simple.
The projected location of opening 3 is not exactly defined yet (because its approximate location is not readily accessible), therefore - in a model - it can be varied within certain limits as allowed and suggested by other evidence. In this case, the February 1943 photograph indicates that the chimney number 3 (which existence follows from testimonial and aerial photographic evidence)
By what evidence?

You have testimony showing it? Show it.
You have another photo showing it? Show it.

Yes, I see that you need to move it some limits which depend on your current situation.
is located in a way that it is at least partly hidden by the smokestack. Drawing assumptions and conclusions from evidence is only "cheating" in Bob's little world.
Yes, after February 19 2012 when you are trying to match photo, your chimney 3 is suddenly located behing the smokestack, I see.

I stll wait to show me hole 3 location and hole 2 location on photos i provided to you.
http://www.vho.org/GB/c/CM/Photo-31-blowup.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_AB36D4g8j4Q/R ... G_2870.JPG" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_AB36D4g8j4Q/R ... G_2871.JPG" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://bp0.blogger.com/_AB36D4g8j4Q/R7s ... G_2872.JPG" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_AB36D4g8j4Q/R ... G_2868.JPG" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://bp0.blogger.com/_AB36D4g8j4Q/R7s ... G_2868.JPG" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_AB36D4g8j4Q/S ... G_3259.JPG" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
You have already located the area of opening 3 yourself.
Wrong, i only marked for you location in which your source or you believe to inform you where is this location since you didn´t know it. I see no introduction hole, only two cracks, one of them Hole number 8 according to Provan crossed by iron rods so not introduction hole. Both cracks ignored by your source, exactly as your source, I do not see any introduction hole.

So where is your invisible introduction hole 3 in this area Hans?
The published close-ups of opening number 2 do not show the surroundings, so that I cannot readily see where exactly this is on the fuzzy photo you posted.
You again try to claim that photo is too bad to see hole? :roll: This photo is without problem to see your alleged hole.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_AB36D4g8j4Q/S ... G_3259.JPG" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Another photo from different angle
http://bp0.blogger.com/_AB36D4g8j4Q/R7s ... G_2868.JPG" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Photo from your source with arrow marking location of your alleged introduction hole 2.
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... -final.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Please, show your introduction hole 2.

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 3:28 pm

Bob wrote:
Hans wrote:This is obvious from his construction and does not require evidence.
In the other words, you refused to demonstrate where Mattogno is wrong as you claim and you refused to back up yopur claim, and you used another zero-value claim "This is obvious....and does not require evidence" in the other words, the same nonsense used when somebody is trying to prove gassing.

Sorry, just zero value.
Now you are getting really nasty, Bob. You have quoted me out of context and distort what I actually said.

I said: "That Mattogno has derived the central line from the outline of the basement? This is obvious from his construction and does not require evidence."

So what is "obvious and does not require evidence" is that "Mattogno has derived the central line from the outline of the basement" and nothing else, and not what you fictionally inserted and falsely deduced in your "other words".
(or the fact that Mattogno and Rudolf had to manipulate the photograph, something not nessecary if the photo was not that blurry).
Did i understand you correctly that according to you Mattogno or Rudolf manipulated the photo? If yes, your evidence for this serious accusation is where?
You have probably misunderstand me. Check up the meaning of "manipulate" in a dictionary.

"to treat or operate with or as if with the hands or by mechanical means especially in a skillful manner"

"Manipulate" in this context means that Mattogno and Rudolf have heavily changed the contrast of the photograph, exactly because it so blurry.
Your claim that you would have proven that Mazal et al.'s model and the ground photograph do not match, is false.
This is of course untrue and no wonder you again did not present any argument, here is their picture, they proved it themselves, it does not match, simple.
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... -final.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It does match well as everybody can see. You can fool yourself, but you cannot fool the reader, Bob.
You have only shown that your assumed south-east edge of the basement does not correspond to their model.If anything, this suggests that YOUR own assumption is incorrect. The fact that you had to make an assumption where the south-east edge actually is (and it is nothing but an assumption), already shows that there is no way how you can prove anything with this method, since you will have to show that your assumption is correct to begin with, something (I predict, but you are invited to prove me wrong) virtually impossible in the light of the blurry photograph.
Another absolutely wrong claim, and I must say, outrageous dishonest statement, here is again picture. As can be seen, I didn´t assume anything, I used it correctly.
You are assuming that your line represents the south-east edge, but which is unproven and not obvious nor self-evident. An unproven assumption remains an assumption.
You have already located the area of opening 3 yourself.
Wrong, i only marked for you location in which your source or you believe to inform you where is this location since you didn´t know it. I see no introduction hole, only two cracks, one of them Hole number 8 according to Provan crossed by iron rods so not introduction hole. Both cracks ignored by your source, exactly as your source, I do not see any introduction hole.
You did mark the projected area of opening number 3, which is mostly debris and rubble. If you do not see the opening, it may be exactly because of the debris and rubble.
Please, show your introduction hole 2.
Already answered:

The published close-ups of opening number 2 do not show the surroundings, so that I cannot readily see where exactly this is on the fuzzy photo [or the other] you posted.

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 4:21 pm

Hans wrote:Now you are getting really nasty, Bob. You have quoted me out of context and distort what I actually said.

I said: "That Mattogno has derived the central line from the outline of the basement? This is obvious from his construction and does not require evidence."

So what is "obvious and does not require evidence" is that "Mattogno has derived the central line from the outline of the basement" and nothing else, and not what you fictionally inserted and falsely deduced in your "other words".
But my point is that you still dont want to demonstrate alleged bad outline drawen by Mattogno and your further claims. You simply have no backing arguments, only claims and accusations with zero value, demonstrate correct outline. You know that Mattogno is allegedly wrong, so logically you must know it better otherwise you would not say that Mattogno is wrong.
You have probably misunderstand me. Check up the meaning of "manipulate" in a dictionary.

"to treat or operate with or as if with the hands or by mechanical means especially in a skillful manner"

"Manipulate" in this context means that Mattogno and Rudolf have heavily changed the contrast of the photograph, exactly because it so blurry.
I checked dictionary from english to my native language, and one of the meaning is "to fake" "to alter", you must be specific, you know very well that propably every word in english has several meanings.

So demonstrate how this alleged "manipulation" affected images, becuase I have no problem with these photos.
It does match well as everybody can see. You can fool yourself, but you cannot fool the reader, Bob.
Image

Image

Are you serious?
You are assuming that your line represents the south-east edge, but which is unproven and not obvious nor self-evident. An unproven assumption remains an assumption.
Image

Please, don´t insult my intelligence and my eyes. (edited)
You did mark the projected area of opening number 3, which is mostly debris and rubble. If you do not see the opening, it may be exactly because of the debris and rubble.
Is of course obvious why Hans refused again to show where is his opening and was not alble to show it, because in this photo, no opening exist, simply nothing, nada, zero and not "under rubble".
Already answered:

The published close-ups of opening number 2 do not show the surroundings, so that I cannot readily see where exactly this is on the fuzzy photo [or the other] you posted.
So you ingored it again and you again refused, and why? Because Hans has no clue where this hole is as in the case of hole 3, because there is no introduction hole in these photos as well, only simple cracks and Hans has not enough gall to mark one of them them as introduction hole, because this is probably too embarrassing even for him.

The only thing which Hans proved is that he has no idea about his source, same as Mr. Muehlenkamp, he can only repeat reports, parrot photos or claims, but does he understand them? No, he even needed me to show him what his photos actually shows and then he used my own sketch to say "you marked projected area of hole 3 yourself" and he ignore that I simply don´t see any opening number 3.

Hans, my last try since you obviously don´t want to cooperate even when I provided you with all information you requested from me, no surprise. So can you tell me what will happen with your belief if I will show you that hole 3 don´t exist in the roof and I will provide you with photos and video?

David
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5006
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by David » Tue Mar 13, 2012 5:05 am

Hello All-
Back from reviewing my photographs of the inside of "The Big Gas Chamber
of the Ugly Myth."

Hans, The entire roof is still intact enough to clearly see any "vent holes."
There were only two holes chipped in. (probably by the Soviets in 1945)
The large Soviet chipped hole is still the only way to enter the room.

My observations are confirmed by Pressac-

"Upper left, the hole in the ceiling is assumed to be one of the Zyklon-B introduction openings, but the positions of the two holes that can be seen today do not correspond to those of the US Air Force photograph taken on 25th August 1944.
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... 0354.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There are no other holes cut into the roof. Mazel and Keren spent three years
trying to think of excuses and reasons for the two missing holes.
They ain't there.

Not only are two zyklon vent holes "missing" but so are any sign of
chimneys, attachments, wire columns, lids, etc.

In fact, the Germans seemed to have left all the fittings of the "gas chamber."
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... 0363.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No wire columns. hard to explain.


As I pointed out (you must have missed it) pouring in Zyklon from the roof
was absurd. Everyone now admits that just dumping Zyklon into the roof
would have caused impossible technical difficulties.

There is one claim of a system that at least would have
gotten the cyanide emitting pellets out of the room but not one "eye witness"
ever saw it used.

It has been also proven that the air induction and extraction systems as
built were IMPOSSIBLE to use. The induction system was a fragile system
hanging from the ceiling. The extraction system was a floor level system
designed for the cold air of a morgue. As Pressac admits, it would have been
impossible for a "gas chamber."
GAS 3000 PEOPLE IN LEICHENKELLER I OF KREMATORIUM II?
IMPOSSIBLE, THE BODIES WOULD HAVE BLOCKED
THE LOWER AIR EXTRACTION ORIFICES

http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... 0377.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But, Pressac continues..."Once the gas chamber had been emptied, a squad of fitters or bricklayers would have fixed at the end of the chamber, in the southeast corner a steel duct of about 20 cm diameter and 2 meters high or built a brick chimney of about the same dimensions connecting with or protecting one of the lower air extraction orifices and enabling it to take in warm contaminated air from above."

Another Believer "excuse." A statement of Faith not evidence.


And, it is shown that the air extraction system vent on the roof of the building was close to the air induction system for the Leichenkeller. Again, an absurd flaw
in design for a "gas chamber."
In fact, the roof top air induction vent might have served other parts of the building.
This would have made the as built design impossible to use.

Then there is the ground level photograph of the roof without any
"chimneys" visible
on the roof of Leichenkeller 1- Probablytaken in summer 1943.

http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... 0341.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Please also note, "As there has never been any camouflage around Krematorien II and III, except in the imagination of traditional historians,"
Another Believer lie exploded!

Hans- you started off claiming, that the evidence of use of Leichenkeller 1 as
a gas chamber was overwhelming. In fact it seems the opposite to me.
1. The plans never showed vent holes.
2. I have directed you to two ground level
photographs which do not show chimneys (or holes)

3. There seems to be reasonable dispute over the number of holes in the
roof.
4. There is no dispute that the holes were crudely chipped in with re-bar cut.

5. The ventilation system in the morgue was perfect for a morgue with floor
level extraction of cool air etc. It was almost impossible for mass murder.

6. The "best idea" of how the system worked requires belief that the Germans
stood fully exposed on the roof of the morgue in the wind and rain to
pour zyklon into little baskets inside wire chimneys. and then sealed the
chimneys with lids.

7. Gas masks would have been needed but have never been
mentioned in your testimony.
8. All this done with no communication with the basement
level inside the building!
9. The as built system would have blown fatal levels of cyanide gas
back into the Krema II building.

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 Apr 09, 2012 5:50 pm

The following is a review posting on the evidence and Revisionist arguments on the issue gas introduction in crematoria 2 and 3 in Auschwitz-Birkenau. I have tried to include as much material as possible, and if I missed something or if Revisionists provide fresh arguments, I will work them into this posting.

Testimonial evidence

Testimonial evidence is an important type of evidence to study history. Testimonies are typically available in high number and allows good access to the matter of interest from different perspectives. A problem can be memory fading and manipulation, which needs to be taken care of by means of comparing against each other as well as against other evidence.

So far I have collected 26 affirmative accounts on the gas openings in crematorium 2 and 3, which are compiled here. A summary table can be found here.

It is first of all striking that the accounts are not limited to a certain group and certain occasion, but are distributed among several groups involved in the concentration camp – SS, Jewish prisoner, Polish prisoner, Soviet prisoner, civilian – and were given at numerous different circumstances – Soviet/Polish investigations, British investigations, Allied investigations, West-German investigations, letter to historian, interviews with historian, interview with Revisionist even, contemporary reports, drawings, books. The heterogeneous nature of the accounts is remarkable and already indication that we are dealing with an authentic and reliable piece of history here.

Numbers of openings

11 accounts have identified four gas openings.

2 accounts have identified three or four openings.

3 accounts have mentioned two openings. According to testimonial evidence (Henryk Tauber, Yehuda Bacon, Paul Bendel, Daniel Bennahmias, Josef Sackar), the gassing basement(s) was (were) later subdivided into two separate chambers in order handle smaller transports more easily. Each chamber was then equipped with two gas openings. The references to two gas openings can be interpreted in the context of the subdivision and are thus in principle compatible with a total number of openings of four for the whole basement. In total, these are 13 accounts that have explicitly referred to four gas openings and 4 accounts that have possibly referred to four gas openings.

2 accounts have described one opening, but the descriptions do not - implicitly or explicitly - exclude that there were in fact more openings in the basement (thus I wrote "at least 1" in the summary table). 2 accounts stated there was more than one gas opening and four accounts did not specify the number of openings.

The 2 remaining accounts have given a figure of three as the number of gas openings.

Thus, if we summarize the figures, two gas openings are can be supported with 3 accounts, three gas openings with 4 accounts and four gas openings with 16 accounts. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude there had been four gas openings in the gas chamber's ceiling.

Gas introduction devices

18 of 26 accounts have mentioned or described a column leading down into the gas chamber. Those who commented on the material of the column have identified it as perforated metal/wire mesh.

Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Höß described it was “fenced around with a grating”, SS investigator Konrad Morgen remembered it as “grilled shaft” and the SS officer Josef Erber explained it consisted of “four iron bars...encased by steel wire mesh".

The Polish prisoner Michal Kula described them as "columns of wire netting" made of "3 mm iron wire stretched over angle irons", the Soviet prisoner Ananij Petko and Vladimir Pegov as "lattice-work columns", the Jewish prisoner Henryk Tauber as “made of grills of thick steel wire”, the Jewish prisoner Paul Bendel as "mesh tubes", the Jewish prisoner Miklos Nyszli as "sheet-iron pipes, the sides of which contained many perforations", the Jewish prisoner Filip Müller as "hollow columns...surrounded by perforated sheet", the Jewish prisoner Josef Sackar as "pillars with cages around them", the Jewish prisoner Shaul Chasan as "latticework shaft...made of perforated metal", the Jewish prisoner Yehuda Bacon as "steel bars surrounded by thick fence wire", the prisoner Michel Scheckter as "latticework chimney-like structures" and the Jewish prisoner David Olere draw them as four bars surrounded by wire mesh.

These descriptions are well corresponding and are essentially referring to the same outer structure of the device. The variants wire mesh and perforated metal, though technically different, are similar and could have been easily confused.

The inner part of the column is known from fewer sources. The most detailed description is from Michal Kula, who took part in the construction of the device and mentioned a second wire mesh fixed inside. This was also testified by Henryk Tauber at his interrogation of 27-28 February 1945 (Mattogno, Auschwitz Lies). At a later depostion, Tauber mentioned a third fixed wire mesh, but which is most likely mistaken in the light of Kula's account and Tauber's own earlier description

Kula also described that there was a movable inner column made of wire mesh with a central cone to distribute the pellets to the sides. Because of the large amount of details provided by him on the device and his position in the metal workshop, Kula has to be taken as primary witness on the columns - unless a detail is clearly contradicted by strong evidence. Thus, the mobile inner part described by Kula was likely constructed and used at least in the beginning. Filip Müller mentioned there was a “spiral” inside the column to “distribute the gas”. This is possibly a misleading and misunderstanding reference to the cone described by Kula.

For Henryk Tauber the movable inner part was a “box”, which could be regarded as a very simplified and somewhat inaccurate description of Kula’s mobile column. On the other hand, Josef Erber’s “sheet with low edge” is hardly compatible with Kula’s account anymore and suggests that the more complex and bulky device may have been later replaced by Erber’s simpler container. Both Tauber and Erber agreed that the mobile part was lifted up with a wire.

Chimnies

Several witnesses, Henryk Tauber, Henryk Porebski, Yehuda Bacon, Dov Paisikovic, Stanislaw Jankowski and Miklos Nyiszli, have mentioned chimnies on top of the openings. The roof was supposed to be covered with soil and grass (according to Henryk Tauber and construction documents), which might explain the difficulty for many witnesses to notice and characterize the chimnies. The chimneys are in fact most likely visible on a February 1943 ground photograph still showing the bare roof and not yet covered by soil (see also section on ground photographs).

Chimneys are certainly a reasonable feature to provide protection against water and to allow burying the basement under earth. But what was the construction material of the chimneys? It is usually assumed that the chimnies were made of brick, which seems the most reasonable choice, but so far I could not find direct confirmation for this in the eyewitness accounts. So it cannot be ruled out that the chimney were of a different material like concrete or even a corrosion resistant metal.

The covers of the gas shafts were described as “concrete” by five witnesses, while Josef Erber remembered an “iron cover”. The “glas” version provided by Jaacov Gabai is very doubtful, not corroborated and can be rejected as severe memory fading or hearsay knowledge. Early evidence from the transfer inventory of crematorium 2 suggests that a wooden cover was used in the beginning.

Size

The civilian engineer Karl Schultze stated that there were four openings of 25 x 25 cm in the roof, Yehuda Bacon estimated the column to be 40 x 40 cm and Michal Kula recalled the dimension of the column as 70 cm x 70 cm. Strictly speaking, we have to consider two sets of openings and columns, those of crematorium 2 and those of crematorium 3, which did not necessarily have the same dimensions. Crematorium 2 was completed and used much earlier so that modifications might have been incorporated in crematorium 3.

Without taking into account other evidence, it would appear reasonable to assume the opening and device to be at the order of 70 x 70 cm as estimated by Kula, since he is the first choice witness on the device. However, when taking further evidence into account the picture of the device derived from Kula’s testimony has to be modified. According to physical evidence (see the respective section), which trumps testimonial evidence (when misinterpretation of physical evidence can be excluded at least), the openings in the roof of the gas chamber of crematorium 2 were somewhat less than 50 x 50 cm.

There are in principle three explanations for the apparent contradiction of the physical evidence with Kula’s account: a) Kula was referring to the device of crematorium 3, which was larger than the device of crematorium 2 in this case, b) he was mistaken with respect to the dimension, c) his description is incomplete/inaccurate and did not mention that the outer wire mesh was not penetrating the roof. Which of explanations is actually true is hard to decide without additional evidence.

Counter witness

As far as I know, there is a single account doubting the existence of gas openings. The German civilian engineer Walter Schreiber and former chief inspector of Huta in Kattowitz stated that he did not remember about openings in the reinforced concrete roof of the cellars and that he would have objected against the construction of openings in the roof. If anything, this would indicate that the SS in Auschwitz implemented the openings on their own without the civilian firm. But there is a serious problem with the testimony. Schreiber stated that he did not know anything about gas chambers in the crematoria, but the documents from the Auschwitz archives prove that the workers of his own firm equipped the crematoria with gas tight doors and windows. This clearly shows that Schreiber's knowledge on what was going on at the crematoria construction sites was very limited or he was suffering severe memory fading at the time of the testimony (not surprisingly at an age of 90). In any case, his single, isolated, late and uncorroborated account is not suitable to shed serious doubts on the existence of the openings.

Revisionist arguments
Spoiler:
Revisionism (aka Holocaust denial) has shown from its foundation up to now almost complete refusal to properly evaluate testimonial evidence. In fact, many or most of Revisionism’s misconceptions are born from poor analysis of testimonial evidence. Does Bob make any difference here?

His take on the testimonial evidence is actually even worse then most Revisionist ramblings. He borrows foul ingredients from Mattogno and adds to the meal some of his own misconceptions. As a result, Bob merely names a few minor mistakes or inaccuracies in only few of the accounts without explaining the testimonies, and actually believes this would invalidate the testimonial evidence.

Mattogno thinks (adopted from Stäglich and repeated by Bob) that because the SS investigator Konrad Morgen, who spent only little time in Auschwitz and occupied his mind with many other things during the war, confused the subcamp Monowitz with Birkenau at his Nuremberg testimony, his description of the gas chamber not only at the IMT but also at the later West-German Auschwitz trial has to be dismissed. Such a reasoning clashes with reality and any common sense that human memory is imperfect. Any proper evaluation has to take into account the liability of testimonial evidence for mistakes and inaccuracies. Historical truth has to be extracted from testimonies by means of comparing, corroborating and filtering out any mistakes and inaccuracies. Morgen was apparently mixing some features from Monowitz with Birkenau in Nuremberg, but his description of the crematorium is corroborated by numerous other accounts. Mattogno's conclusion that because of the confusion over Monowitz and Birkenau, Morgen is a "completely unreliable witness" on the crematorium is in fact completely nonsense.

The Jewish Sonderkommando member Jaacov Gabai told the historian Gideon Greif in the 90s that “a blue vapor spread through the chamber. The gas came in the form of blue cubes”, which is enough for Bob to dismiss the entire testimony because it is a “clear lie” and “ridiculous”. Bob failed to properly analyze the testimony. It is apparent from the context that the Gabai could not observe the evaporation of the gas, since he was on the other side of the gas tight door and after opening of the door the gas chamber was already ventilated. So if Gabai talked about the color of the gas vapor, he was necessarily guessing what the vapour looked like. Since the pellets he remembered were bluish (and maybe also because the gas is called “blue acid” in German), he has assumed that the evaporated poison was also blue.

The color of the gas soaked pellets was depending on the actual carrier material employed. The SS private Pery Broad confirmed in his report written shortly after the war that “the cans contain blue pellets of pie size” and indeed the Zyklon-B could have been delivered as blue cubes exactly as mentioned by Gabai. So it is in fact not the witness who was lying, but Bob himself!

This is an interesting observation and inspires to spin that thought further. If we apply Bob’s bogus standard of what is a lie and method that a single mistake invalidates anything produced by a person, we can conclude that because Bob has lied about Zyklon-B never being blue cubes, anything claimed by him so far and anything that is claimed by him in the future can be safely dismissed as false.

Bob believes that Miklos Nyszli and Paul/Charles Bendel “never saw gas chamber/morgue” because they gave a wrong dimension of the basement (both arguments are taken from Mattogno). Bendel stated in his examination of 1 October 1945 that the gas chamber was filled with corpses “to the height of one and a half metres”. On 2 March 1946 he testified at the Tesch trial that the gas chamber was 1,70 m high. The figure of 1,60 m was actually put into his mouth by the defendant lawyer, conveniently omitted by Bob as well as by Mattogno. In any case, the basement was some 2,41 m high according to blueprints, so that Bendel had grossly underestimated its height.

Does that mean that Bendel never saw the basement, as claimed by Bob? Bendel gave several accounts on Auschwitz and the degree of details and insider knowledge he provided on the activity at the crematoria suggests that he was actually part of the crematoria personnel. As such, he had at least direct contact to people who worked in the basement, but also could have witnessed the basement himself. The underestimation of the gas chambers height could suggest that Bendel did not step inside the chamber but only observed it from the outside through the door. A room packed with corpses might have very well given him the impression of a very low roof. Alternatively, Bendel was heavily traumatized, which effected his memory on the ceiling height. But his description of the gassing device is corroborated by other evidence and is thus not unreliable at all.

Miklos Nyszli described the gas chamber basement four times longer than it actually was. Does that mean that Nyszli never saw the basement, as Bob claims? Nyszli had written a lengthy account on Auschwitz and it is also apparent from the large amount of details on the crematoria provided by him that he was part of the crematoria staff. It is likely that he saw the basement from some perspective, irrespective of the question whether it was a gas chamber, and therefore the exaggeration of the basement length has to be attributed to poor estimation qualities, poor observer position and/or memory fading, rather than not having seen it. Conversely, if we would accept Bob’s explanation that Nyszli never saw the basement, we would end up with the unsolved problem to explain the genesis of his account.

Shaul Chazan testified that the gas had a “pungent smell”, which Bob thinks is “really absurd” because “HCN has slight odor” and it “must be some other miracle and he survived gassing or he magically breathed through the door”. Yet, it is not Chazan’s account which is absurd, but again Bob’s sluggish and ignorant analysis.

Zyklon-B was not pure hydrogen cyanide soaked into a carrier but did contain additives as stabilizators and warning agent. The warning agents had to have a pungent odor in order provide proper warning of the poison. Even without a warning agent – it is known that some Zyklon-B was delivered without it – the gas released by Zyklon-B could have a pungent smell from a stabilizer like ethyl chloroacetate.

The warning agent was chosen so that it was already present (or still present) when the toxic concentration was not reached yet (or already diluted). Thereby it was possible to smell the warning agent released from the Zyklon-B when the cyanide concentration was below a critical level. So even a ventilated gas chamber, that was entered by the Jewish Sonderkommando prisoners without risk, could smell from the warning agent. If Bob had actually studied Chazan’s account, he would know that Chazan indeed explained that “sometimes there were still residues of toxic gas there” after the Sonderkommando entered the gas chamber, which in case the pungent smell was related to Zyklon-B, was of course the warning agent or stabilizator. Such an error is entirely irrelevant since Chazan did not had technical equipment to study the origin of the pungent smell.

Filip Müller is accused of having plagiarized Miklos Nyszli by Mattogno and Bob thankfully jumped on this bandwagon. There is in fact passage in Müller's book which was evidently taken from Nyszli's 1961 work, a speech hold at the crematorium site. But Müller already described the wire mesh column in 1946, years before the article from Nyiszli was published and so he could not have taken the description from there.

It was also suggested by Bob that testimony providing less details is contradicting more detailed testimonies. The argument is relying on the ignorance to take into account the context and circumstance of a testimony. The degree of detail actually depends on a number of factors. It depends on the actual time and the position a person could spend to actually witness the matter. It depends on the memory of a person and the rate of memory fading. It depends on the time after the observation the testimony is made. It depends on the way the testimony is extracted. It depends on the question and knowledge of the examining person. It depends on the time a person can spent to gather the memory. It depends on the internal motivation of a person. It depends on intelligence and personality what a person considers worth to recall etc.

For example, Rudolf Vrba was not a member of the Jewish Sonderkommando and did not have access to basement. He could not witness the gas introduction device by himself, but only from hearsay but which is more likely to escape when writing something down. Hans Münch was interview by Rudolf when he was apparently already suffering from severe memory fading. One cannot expect too much details from such an account.

Karl Schultze was working at the ventilation system of the homicidal gas chamber. He reported towards Soviet investigators that there were four openings 25 x 25 cm in the roof, but did not mention the device. We do know from physical evidence that the openings were already made when the concrete was poured and when Schultze was working in the gas chamber, but we do not know exactly if the device was already in place. It is entirely possible that the device was not installed yet when Schultze was inside the basement (even after the first gassing was already carried out in the basement, the device was an optional not a necessary piece of equipment) and that he did not mention it simply because it was not installed yet.

Such specific context of a testimony is usually conveniently ignored by Revisionists resulting in misleading or false analysis of the testimonial evidence.
Ground photographical evidence

On a SS ground photograph taken in February 1943, three cuboids can be seen on the roof of the homicidal gas chamber of crematorium 2. The location of the cuboids corresponds well with the location of the gas openings identified by archeological evidence (see also the section on physical evidence), as shown by the overlap of the model of the building based on the blueprints and the physical findings with the ground photograph as published by Mazal, Keren, McCarthy here. I tried to verify the result by modeling the basement myself and feeding it with the physical findings. The match of my model with the ground photograph also shows good agreement and confirms the result.

Another photograph taken earlier in January 1943 shows the gassing basement of crematorium without the chimnies, which shows they were constructed between both photographs. It is not possible to tell from the photograph whether the gas openings are in the roof, since a) the basement is covered by snow and b) there is almost no view on the actual roof surface from the perspective. However, the archeological evidence indicates the openings were made when the concrete was poured and that they are already in place at the time this photo was taken.

Revisionist arguments
Spoiler:
According to Mattogno, the objects identifed as gas chimnies are cylindrical because they are "rounded at top and bottom, which is absolutely incompatible with the shadow zones of a parallelepiped". Actually the objects show a similar curvature as the ventilation chimnies on top of the basement on the best resolved not-photoshopped image available.

Bob claimed that Mazal et al.'s model and the photo do “not match” and to illustrate his claim referred to these close-ups of Mazal’s et al. image. But the close-ups actually show a well match of the model and the photo. The model of chimney number 1 fits almost perfect, the model of chimnies number 2 and 4 show a deviation from the respective objects on the ground photograph by only few pixels. These deviations are small and within the error margin of the method. The location of the openings could only be estimated approximately due to the destruction of the roof, especially the north-south position was prone to some error. For instance, for opening number 4 it is given as 1 m by Mazal et al.

Bob further claimed on here that the model’s south-eastern edge does not match with the photograph. The deviation between the model’s south-eastern angle and what Bob thinks is it on the photograph is about 20 cm if compared against the roof slab, which is small. Moreover, the photograph is particular blurry and irregular in this area, so that it is not possible to definitely identify that the feature Bob thinks is the south-eastern angle is actually the south-eastern angle and not some building material masking the actual edge.

Bob also referred to a sketch of Rudolf or Mattogno (third here) which supposedly shows that the objects that have been identified as gas chimnies 1 and 2 are located both on the eastern side of the basement whereas the physical evidence suggest that opening number 1 was located on the western side. The problem with the approach is that it requires high accuracy especially of the upper southern angle in order to properly determine whether chimney number 1 is left or right of the central line of the basement. The position is very sensitive to the determination of the central line. A deviation of 1 or 2 pixels of the upper south edge already flips the chimney between the eastern and western half. Considering the low quality and blurriness of the photograph as well as that large parts of the basement necessary for the construction are masked, it is rather arbitrary whether one sees the object west or east of the central line with the method Rudolf employed.

When the above was pointed out to Bob, he claimed “you have no proof of chimneys because according to you, photo is bad, no double standard”, which shows that Bob has not understand what the photograph was used for by Rudolf (to prove the object 1 is on the eastern side) and what it was used by Mazal et al. (to match it with the model), which have both entirely different demands on qualities of the photograph. The photograph is bad to conclusively determine the exact central line of the basement (and exact means with a deviation of not even few pixels), so Rudolf's point is moot. But it cannot be too bad to match it with a model and see if there is a well correspondence or not. Such a procedure can be always done and the blurriness does only define an error margin and limits the accuracy. The overlap of course does not conclusively prove that the objects on the photograph are where they have been modeled – and I did not claim it does – but it provides strong evidence that the objects can and have to be interpreted as gas chimnies on top of the gas openings.

Bob also critized that my model and overlap with the train photograph did not correspond to Mazal et al.’s overlap. But even this roughly scaled overlap already shows good correspondence of chimnies 1, 2 and 4 and the deviation of chimney 3 isbecause did not place their chimney 3 more close to chimney 4 in their model. Since the position of opening number 3 is not yet defined by physical or photographical evidence, both assumptions are in principle possible and not contradicted by evidence.

David has posted a photograph of the backside of crematorium 2 taken presumably in summer 1943 and argued it shows “no "chimneys" visible on the roof of Leichenkeller 1”. Actually it was already pointed out by Revisionists Jean-Marie Boisdefeu and Carlo Mattogno in "Auschwitz Lies" some seven years ago that “morgue 1…was mainly outside of the field of view and could not be seen on the photograph” (p. 298). Independently of them, since I was not aware of the writing at the time, I have also showed in this blog posting that the photograph does not show the relevant part of the gassing basement.

David also linked to the January 1943 photograph of the gassing basement and argued that it “seems to show a hole-less roof”. However, as already pointed out, the bare surface of the roof is actually not visible - it is a side view plus snow layer on the roof - and thus it cannot be seen if there are openings are in the roof or not.

So both photographs submitted by David disprove or suggest nothing with regard to the existence of the openings in the basement. The January 1943 photograph demonstrates that no chimnies had been built at the time of the photograph. The chimnies are actually visible on the later photograph dated February 1943, conveniently omitted in David’s summary.
Aerial photographical evidence

In summer 1944, Auschwitz-Birkenau was overflown and photographed by the British RAF, the US Air force and German Luftwaffe. The RAF photographs published in the internet are of too poor resolution to allow reasonable analysis on the issue of activity on the gassing basements of the crematoria. Four available US Air Force and Luftwaffe photographs are compiled here.

The undressing basements (parallel to the main buildings) do not show any features on top of the basement. Except for the footage of September 13 1944, the photographs do show four spots and interconnection of them of the gassing basement of crematorium 2. The September 13 1944 photograph shows the four spots very weak and faint but lacks the interconnection. This is possibly related to masking of the basement by smoke from the bombing of Birkenau. The photograph shows heavy smoke at the sewage plant south of crematorium 2 and smoke coverage of the security screen at the gassing basement as well as smoke plums between crematorium 2 and 3. The smudges are also visible on the 21 December 1944 photograph, but the two southernmost spots are only weak and poorly pronounced, which could be related to dismantling activities (the undressing room seems to be already dismantled).

Four strong alternating spots as well as a weaker spots near the south eastern and north-western corners are visible on the aerial photographs for the gassing basement of crematorium 3.

The absence of any features on top of Leichenkeller 2 (undressing room) and the presence of spots on top of the Leichenkeller 1 (gas chamber) are clearly corresponding with the use of the latter as gas chamber operated from above. The match of the number of spots on top of the gas chamber of crematorium 2 and the number of spots, which are most pronounced, on top of the gas chamber of crematorium 3 with the number of gas introduction openings derived from testimonial evidence is striking. In all cases, the number is four.

However, it is clear from the size and the shape that the spots cannot be the actual gas chimneys and their shadows (as pointed out by Revisionist Germar Rudolf). The actual origin of the smudges is still not known for certain. It was speculated that the dark spots are compacted earth from movement at the gas chimnies, but Mattogno correctly pointed out that the sand at least in the front yard of the crematorium did not lead to such features. It was also proposed that there might be different growth pattern of grass on the roof due to acid environment upon washing the mobile gas devices. In any case, the numerical and distributional correlation strongly suggests that the spots are related to activity at the gas chimnies.

Overlaying the August 25 1944 US Air force photograph of crematorium 2 and crematorium 3 with the location of the gas openings according to physical evidence, which corresponds well to the locations of the chimnies on the February 1943 ground photograph, shows that the smudges include or are attached to the gas openings, which corroborates that the origin of the smudges is related to the activity at the gas chimnies.

Documentary evidence

The transfer inventory of crematorium 2 of 31 March 1943 lists four “wire mesh slide in devices” and “wooden covers” for the Leichenkeller 2 (undressing room). There are three correlations of the devices with the gas columns:

a) material correlation: both the gas columns and the devices mentioned in the document were made of wire mesh

b) numerical correlation: both the gas columns and devices mentioned in the document were four

c ) locational correlation: both the gas columns and the devices mentioned in the document were located in the basement of crematorium 2

On the other hand, there are two problems:

d) locational contradiction: the gas columns were located in the gas chamber, whereas the devices are mentioned for the undressing room

e) Functional contradiction: The mobile part in gas columns was moved down by gravity, whereas the devices mentioned in the document seems to have been be pushed by some extra force.

The first problem can be easily resolved. The gas chamber and undressing room are placed in a list after each other and designated as morgue 1 and 2. This already allows for some speculation that the entry in question may have been switched between the two basements. The probability that such mistake occurred gets greatly enhanced by the fact that the previous entry in the document, the number taps, was in fact switched between the gas chamber and the undressing room. Since the clerk who filled out the document thought that the line for the gas chamber was actually the undressing room and vice versa, when he entered the number taps, there is considerable likelihood that, as he went on to fill in the wire mesh slide in devices and the wooden covers, he did not notice his mistake and continued to switch the entries between the basements.

The second problem was resolved by Roberto, who brought forward the argument that the wire mesh slide may not describe its function but the layout and construction principle, which is a sound explanation. Thus, the most likely interpretation of the document is that wire mesh slide in devices were the gas introduction columns of the gas chamber in crematorium 2, but switched between the lines and so falsely attributed to the undressing room.

The wooden covers were apparently only a temporary solution and later replaced by more robust concrete covers according to testimonial evidence.

Revisionist arguments
Spoiler:
Bob argued that the cover of the chimneys could not have been made of wood and later replaced by concrete because Henryk Tauber is supposed to have "described concrete covers with wooden handles" used in mid March 1943, two weeks before the transfer inventory was written. Bob is reading from the testimony what is not inside. Tauber did not testified that he saw how concrete covers were lifted from the chimneys in mid March 1943. In fact, if Bob had read Tauber's account carefully he would have noticed that Tauber was locked in the autopsy room during the gassing in mid March 1943 ("shut up in a room located at the back") and during later gassings they "were locked up in the coke store". It was only later that he was allowed to stay in the boiler room during the gassing and "observed how the "Cyklon" was poured into the gas chamber".

Bob also complained that the device did not appear in the respective transfer inventory of crematorium 3. Since the testimonial evidence indicates that the devices were also employed at crematorium 3, it may suggest that the devices were not installed yet when the building was formally handed over to the camp administration and implemented later for instance because of construction delay. But it does not refute that the wire mesh slide in devices listed for crematorium 2 are gas columns.

Mattogno argues that the construction of the device is not reflected in the files of the locksmith's shop, therefore it was never build. The argument is flawed and unfounded. That the device does not appear in the files, shows that it was not put into the files or cleared from the files, but it does not exclude its construction. It is certainly possible that the devices were ordered and received from the locksmithery but deliberately without writing it into the locksmith's shop's ledger. Mattogno objects that gas tight doors do appear in the records, but he does not explain whether all gas tight doors installed in the crematoria appear in the ledger (which, if not, would immediately rebut his whole argument). Gas tight doors and windows were a standard feature of delousing chambers, while the wire mesh device was developed just for the homicidal gas chambers, which may explain why the first were entered into the ledger of the locksmithery, but the latter, from this perspective more incriminating piece, not. Further, it is also possible that we are dealing here with different customers. The gas tight doors were ordered by the construction office to install them into the crematoria, which were then handed over to the camp administration. The gas columns were possibly initiated and ordered by the camp administration or by the Gestapo directly with a different policy of secrecy employed. In short, the absence of the devices in the ledger of the locksmith's shop is certainly no proof that they were never build as Mattogno claims.

David argued that "plans never showed vent holes". But the construction drawing, which showed the reinforcing of the concrete roof and which would most likely contain a modification in the roof, is missing. Huta drawings which are actually dated after the construction of building do not show other features which were definitely build, such as the direct access stairway to the undressing room or the five ventilation openings in the ceiling of furnace room on them. If these features were not of relevant for the drawings, then it is hard to see why the gas introduction openings should have been.
Physical evidence

A research of team consisting Harry Mazal, Daniel Keren and Jamie McCarthy investigated the ruin of the gas chamber of crematorium 2 in the late 90s and spotted three suitable candidates for gas openings in collapses roof (see their paper The Ruins of the Gas Chambers: A Forensic Investigation of Crematoriums at Auschwitz I and Auschwitz-Birkenau). The location of the three openings in the ruin as well as the projected location of the forth still missing opening is shown here.

First it helps to ask what characterizes a suitable candidate for a gas opening. The main element of a gas opening candidate nowadays in the ruin (unless there is evidence the opening was filled in - and there is not) is that that there must be a concrete and reinforced steel free area in the roof. Also it can be expected the that the openings were not arbitrary placed but in a certain pattern and more or less equal distribution. It is, however, not a strict requirement to have four straight and intact edges (as in the original state) because possible destruction needs to be taken into account.

The candidate for opening number 1 (counting from south to north) is shown here. Photographic footage from 1945 shows that the opening already existed at the time. The opening has been enlarged since then, but this is only apparent for what is not considered part of the original gas opening anyway. There are drops of tar visible at a straight side of the opening, which suggests that the opening was already in place at the time the tar was put on the roof for waterproofing in early 1943.

The candidate for opening number 2 is shown here, here and here. The cut and bend rebar indicates it was artificially made.

According to Mazal et al., opening number 3 - if it exists, and the testimonial, aerial photographic and documentary evidence suggests that it exists - is supposed to be in a badly damaged area not accessible without the removal of rubble.

The candidate for opening number 4 has been identified here. It shows cut and bent rebar and Mazal et al. noticed out that “both ends of this loop are firmly embedded in a large chunk of concrete to the east of the hole, contradicting any claim of tampering after the war”.

The size of the three openings as indicated by the cut and bent rebar around them is about 50 x 50 cm. Since the concrete likely extended into the opening, the original size was somewhat less. They are located 75 cm from the centre of the roof. The distance between the openings 2 and 4 is peculiar large compared to the distance of opening 1 and 2, which suggests that there is a forth opening in between not identified so far, as also supported by testimonial, aerial photographic and documentary evidence.

The arguments and photographs presented by Mazal et al. have been reviewed by a structural engineer, who concluded that “it is my professional view that the authors present a strong and sustainable case that openings described as zyklon vents 1, 2 and 4 were installed in the roof of the building during the course of construction”.

Revisionist arguments
Spoiler:
Carlo Mattogno claims that the hole number 1 was made by Soviet or the Poles after the war. He argues that the hole was not mentioned by the Polish expert Dawidowksi, which however does not show that the hole did not exist at the time of his investigation or was created after the war, but merely that Dawidowski did not identify the hole as a gas introduction hole, which of course could be related to the damage the opening suffered upon dismantling the basement. Mattogno also ignored the argument that there are tar drops visible at an edge of the opening.

David has suggested that the tar may have been melted on a hot summer day after the war. However, any other photograph we have seen so far showing a piece of the broken roof slab does not seem to have tar drops at the edges and David himself confirmed he did not “notice any tar drops” when he wandered through the ruin. Therefore, the tar drops at opening number 1 seem to be a local phenomenon, which does not suggest it was caused by melting of the sun after the destruction, but rather that they formed during the construction of the basement.

Mazal et al.'s claim that the projected location of opening number 3 is in a badly damaged area covered with rubble has been disputed by Mattogno, however, he merely referred to a photograph, where it is unclear how this is supposed to show that the projected location of opening number 3 is in fact intact.

On opening number 4, Mattogno claims it was caused by crushing of support pillar against the roof, but fails to demonstrate this. He claims that “the lateral bars have not been cut as would have been necessary to erect the brick chimneys around the opening”, but he does not explain why the chimney could not have been erected. He also ignored Mazal et al.'s claim that the both sides of the bent rebar are embedded in the concrete, which - if true, and Mattogno should be able to actually refute the claim if it was not true since he investigated the opening - would rigorously demonstrate the opening was made when the concrete was poured in early 1943.

David says "there are no other holes cut into the roof" but without explaining why the three holes identified by Mazal et al. are not suitable candidates for openings and providing evidence that the projected location of their opening number 3 is accessible and intact. He also argues that are is no "sign of chimneys, attachments, wire columns, lids, etc" but looking at the openings identified by Mazal et al. shows that they are heavily damaged, so one cannot necessary expect to see such features. In fact, areason why the openings are heavily damaged may exactly because they were already partly destroyed upon dismantling of the chimnies and wire mesh devices before the basement was brought down with explosives.

Bob linked to some photographs from the ruin and asked me to locate opening number 2. I cannot see clearly matching features on the close ups of opening number 2 and the photo Bob linked to, which would allow a reasonable guess. The physical existence of what has been identified as opening number 2 by Mazal et al. is confirmed also by Revisionist researchers Mattogno and Provan, so there can be no doubt that the hole exists and it is irrelevant whether it is visible or not and whether I can see or not on this specific photograph Bob linked to. If Bob can see, he is invited to explain where.
Final remark

So where does the evidence leads us? I think that the testimonial evidence establishes that there had been four openings with wire mesh columns and little chimneys in the roof of the homicidal gas chambers of crematorium 2 and 3 to introduce the poison gas, which is nicely corroborated by ground photographical, aerial photographical, documentary and physical evidence, as illustrated in this overview slide.
Last edited by Hans on Sun May 20, 2012 11:21 am, edited 6 times in total.

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 Apr 09, 2012 6:42 pm

That is a very well laid out and explained post Hans, thankyou. I would like to see Bob or any other come back with a similar summary of their evidence.
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 » Tue Apr 10, 2012 10:32 am

Thanks Nessie.

I am certainly also looking forward to a coherent, consistent, sound, reasonable Revisionist analysis of the evidence. Mattogno was far away from such a project with his incoherent and painful drivel in Auschwitz Lies and we do not need to talk about Bob here.

David
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5006
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by David » Thu Apr 12, 2012 4:55 am

A good place to start would be Bauleitung drawing 934 of a Krematorium project, the future Krematorium II,
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/aus ... ection.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Drawings 1173 and 1174 of 15th January 1942 also confirm that the Leichenkeller 1 is partially underground (for insulation) and has no
vent holes.

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/aus ... ection.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Not only does it not have holes in the roof, the structure is poured in place
concrete that seems to have an insulating layer of earth on it.

So, we start off with a clear No Holes.


One needs to ask why the Germans were building an expensive morgue
in November 1942 (which could store 300 bodies) if they had the alleged plans or the capacity to cremate thousands of bodies per day.

Photographic evidence-
There is also a photograph from January 1943
which shows the roof of Leichenkeller 1 with no holes.
The snow is very light and would not have covered any holes.

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/aus ... 301-01.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Believer excuse is that the holes Must have been covered with a thin
board. Since the gaps in the roof and dormers are not covered this
explanation seems very unlikely. Why leave everything else uncovered
but cover just these 2-3-4 holes? Anyway, however lame, it is an excuse.

Then there is another photograph of the roof of Leichenkeller 1 taken in
summer of 1943 the photographs speak for themselves...no chimneys.
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... e341.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This picture clearly causes huge problems for the Believers. They can't see
any chimneys in it so what do they do?

The photo certainly cannot show any of the Zyklon B introduction chimneys.
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... on-of.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"The photographer stood at such an angle that he could see only a very small fraction of the gas chamber. The Believers claim that the photograph stood
to the south/west of the building but was taking a picture of just the east side of
the building

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... on-of.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Figure 9.

So the question is whether ANY of the 2, 3 or 4 alleged chimneys would have shown
up. I underscore that it is agreed that none of them do.


So, does the photograph look distorted?
It is a view of the south side of Krema II. 8 windows are visible along
about 1/2 the distance between window 8 and window 9
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... e341.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
There were 10 on the south side of the building.

If we look at another photograph
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/aus ... 301-01.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This photograph was taken from the south west except it was closer than
the photo in question. All ten windows are visible.


We also know that Leichenkeller 1 was perpendicular to the building.
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/aus ... s-0932.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If we look at the blueprints
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/aus ... rint-2.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
it is clear that Leichenkeller 1 was connected to the main building somewhere
to the east of the western edge of the main building.

To put it in terms of windows, the roof Leichenkeller would have been
visible under window 9 and window 8 counting from the east.

This can be seen in photograph
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... e340.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And in construction drawing Drawing 1173-1174
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... 0273.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If this is correct then the photograph from summer 1943 would show
a large slice across the roof (covered with dirt) and part of the southern face of the Leichenkeller wall.

This is exactly what it does.
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... e341.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is clearly apparent when one compares with the other two views of the
southern side of Leichenkeller 1. The southern wall was not covered with
earth. It was the same in the summer of 1943 as it was in January 1943.

Most importantly, if http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... e341.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; shows the area under window 8 and part of the space between window 8 and 9.
That means that the southern most 2 of the 4 alleged vent holes would have been visible.

And they are not.

Dancing on the roof
One of the most obvious faults with the "holes in the roof" claim is its
amazing impracticality. It would take 2 or 3 men per vent to open the
"vent covers" which presumably needed to be relatively air tight, (cyanide gas
is light than air), pry open the cans, deal with the little baskets on wires.
And what happens at night? What happens in the rain, wind or snow?
Then there are the problems of dealing with cyanide gas. It is serious stuff.
-quote from Sonderbefehl dated August 12, 1942
A case of indisposition with slight symptoms of poisoning by hydrocyanic gas which occured today makes it necessary to warn all those participating in the gassings and all other SS members that in particular on opening rooms used for gassing SS not wearing masks must wait at least five hours and keep at a distance of at least 15 meters from the chamber. In addition, particular attention should he paid to the wind direction. 

The gas being used at present contains less odorous warning agent and is therefore especially dangerous. 

The SS garrison doctor declines all responsibility for any accident that should occur in the case where these directives have not been complied with by SS members. 

http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... 0201.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Gas masks would be needed by anyone sticking his head into a "chimney" to
raise or lower a "little basket."

Then, of course, you have make sure that no one on the roof pours "gas" into
the room while the door inside the building in the basement is still open.
Can't gas your own guys by mistake. How did they do it? Maybe an alarm bell, someone in the basement shouting up the stairs and then someone else shouting
out a window? Who knows? Anyway, it all adds to the noise and drama of
a "gassing"

We have seen from the plans and the photograph of summer 1943,
the roof of the Leichenkeller had earth on it.

Necessary for keeping a morgue cool. But just try to conduct a gassing
while standing on the roof, in the mud, in the rain, with the wind, at night....
with 8 - 12 people in gas masks, with people shouting out of the window at them.

It sounds so stupid as to be comical but this is what had to have happened
if the Germans had actually tried to convert the Leichenkeller into a gas chamber
with roof holes to pour zyclon through.

Believers ignore the practicalities of their own tales.


But it doesn't end there. All this dancing on the roof would have been visible from
public areas of the camp.
Take a look at the aerial photograph dated May 31, 1944.

http://www1.yadvashem.org/exhibitions/a ... raphs.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The roof of Leichenkeller 1 Krema II is visible from the kitchen of women's camp
150 meters to the east
As the photograph of the summer of 1943 shows, the roof was also visible
from across the water purification tanks to the south.
And from the the open fields to the west.

Next to Krema III was the large soccer field where inmates hung out.

The "problem" of 8 SS men in gas masks dancing on the roof of
the morgue was obvious to the Soviet propagandists in 1945.
They created a mini-myth to make the tale of roof vents more believable.
They claimed that the gas chambers were surrounded by a ring of tree
or screens to hide to horrible scenes.

In fact, If you visit Krema II today, there really is a ring of trees.
http://www.scrapbookpages.com/auschwitz ... hoto6.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As we can see from all pictures from 1943 through June 1944,
Krema II and Krema III had no screening.

See- http://www1.yadvashem.org/yv/en/exhibit ... oto_28.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We learn that the tale of holes on the roof requires a grotesque scene of SS men
struggling on the roof of the Leichenkeller.
We can learn that false explanations are made up.
We learn that "evidence" is created to substantiate the mini-myths.

Chester
Account Locked
Posts: 347
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:08 pm

Little train photo

Post by Chester » Sat Apr 14, 2012 7:22 pm

Are you guys really using a doctored photo? Don't you realize that a doctored photo cannot be entered into evidence? :lol:

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

Re: Little train photo

Post by Nessie » Sun Apr 15, 2012 4:17 am

Chester wrote:Are you guys really using a doctored photo? Don't you realize that a doctored photo cannot be entered into evidence? :lol:
I do not know what photo you are referring to, but would point out that the revisionists rely on heavily doctored physical evidence to make their case about Krema II. They rely on a blown up roof that has significant damage to then say no holes. So by your reasoning, the roof at Krema II cannot be entered into evidence.

The photographic evidence shows us that there was activity on the roof. In the snow covered photo during construction there is nothing there. In the train photo there are small chimneys. In the arial photos there are dark smudges in some but not other images which apparently have no elevation but show that it is likely the top concret layer has been removed/come away to reveal the bitumen layer underneath. So there is conflicting physical evidence. Chester, what do you do with conflicting physical evidence?

You said (and Bob before you) that physical evidence trumps witness testimony. So

1 - if physical evidence has been tampered with, does it no longer trump witness testimony?

2 - if physical evidence conflicts, do you go with the physical evidence that is matched by witness testimony or not?
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 Apr 15, 2012 1:17 pm

Exactly like other defenders of lies like Nessie and Muehlenkamp, Hans repeated again what I already answered and refuted, and he also added some inventions from me which I never claimed. He also cheated readers with omitting all information and he simply provided only what suits him, as usual. I finished with Nessie, Muehlenkamp, so I am curious about Hans this time, all what is needed are only two points.

Hans, you dodged my points, my requests, please, can you answer at least this? Can you tell me what exactly is your problem with this east edge of LK1?
http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg864/sc ... res=medium" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Your repetitive posts claims that Mattogno incorrectly marked this edge in attempt to explain that objects are located as you claim and not on east part of the roof and you ignored my request to somehow demonstrate it, so can you tell me exactly what is wrong with this edge? The correct edge should be more in east (right) direction or moved to west (left) direction? Take your pick Hans, I am all ears.

As i said, you dodged everything about physical evidence and my requests so I repeat - Hans, my last try since you obviously don´t want to cooperate even when I provided you with all information you requested from me, no surprise. So can you tell me what will happen with your belief if I will show you that hole 3 don´t exist in the roof and I will provide you with photos and video?

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 Apr 15, 2012 2:44 pm

What is happening here is that this image

http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... ground.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

is being aligned with this badly damaged and corrupted evidence

http://www.mazal.org/Auschwitz%20jpg/KII/K2-053.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

to say whether or not there were holes in the roof of Leichenkeller I during 1943/44.

Bob claims Hans is out with his measurements, Hans says he is not. I say both are having to estimate and the reality is because of the Nazis attempts to cover up their activities that is the best we can do. During an explosion big enough to bring down a huge reinforced concrete structure it appears that the remnants of three holes have survived and one has not.

Now if Bob can show a complete piece of concrete in the remains that can be shown to have been in the place where hole 3 should have been then he has a case. But he has to do that from this from physical evidence that has been tampered with. In the end he will have to estimate.

Now after the claims of the likes of Bob that witness testimony is unreliable when countered with physical evidence that contradicts it, does he accept this does not necessarily apply when the physical evidence has been tampered with?
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

David
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5006
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by David » Mon Apr 16, 2012 8:55 pm

Nessie wrote:e claims of the likes of Bob that witness testimony is unreliable when countered with physical evidence that contradicts it, does he accept this does not necessarily apply when the physical evidence has been tampered with?
Hello Nessie-
I am not sure what you mean.




David
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5006
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

Re: Little train photo

Post by David » Mon Apr 16, 2012 9:18 pm

Nessie wrote:
Chester wrote:Are you guys really using a doctored photo? Don't you realize that a doctored photo cannot be entered into evidence? :lol:
I do not know what photo you are referring to, but would point out that the revisionists rely on heavily doctored physical evidence to make their case about Krema II. They rely on a blown up roof that has significant damage to then say no holes. So by your reasoning, the roof at Krema II cannot be entered into evidence.
Hello Nessie. The roof was made of three layers, poured in place
concrete, a layer of asphalt felt, and a cap of concrete. Because of the steel rebar
in the concrete, the lowest layer retains its integrity very well.
And, because of the pattern of the wooden forms, it is quite possible to
see what was part of the original pour.
This can seen clearly in http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... 0354.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

On the other hand, the surface of the roof was been covered with the cracked
"cap" and with dirt that sloughed onto the roof.
What this all means is that the clearest understanding of the "vent holes"
is obtained from looking up at them from the inside of the morgue room.

The alinement with the (real concrete) columns and the center beam is obvious.
The fact that the two holes were chipped in is clear. The fact that there
could not have been any attachments for wire columns is also clear.

Finally, it is also clear why the one big hole are the south end of the roof was chipped in. It was the only way to enter the room once the north end of the ceiling was
dropped down to block the doorway.

So, to address your comment that the roof has been "tampered with."
I would disagree as far as intentionally is concerned.

While the Germans did blow up the building, they avoided destroying the
most important evidence of the alleged crime...part of the roof where there
are two holes!

The Soviets did not intentionally create "vent holes" in the roof but needed to
enter the "gas chamber."





Chester
Account Locked
Posts: 347
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:08 pm

Re: Little train photo

Post by Chester » Wed Apr 18, 2012 3:31 pm

Nessie wrote:
Chester wrote:Are you guys really using a doctored photo? Don't you realize that a doctored photo cannot be entered into evidence? :lol:
I do not know what photo you are referring to. . .
Look at the little train photo and let us know what anomalies you spot.

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 » Wed Apr 18, 2012 3:46 pm

David wrote:
Nessie wrote:e claims of the likes of Bob that witness testimony is unreliable when countered with physical evidence that contradicts it, does he accept this does not necessarily apply when the physical evidence has been tampered with?
Hello Nessie-
I am not sure what you mean.



Revisionists hold physical evidence as the prime form of evidence. If a witness states something that is contradicted by physical evidence, the revisionist concludes the witness is lying. For example reports of Zyklon B being poured into holes in the roof of Leichenkeller I and gas chambers at Treblinka II. The revisionist states no holes and no evidence of a gas chamber. But look at what is left of Leichenkeller I and the site at Treblinka II. Tampered physical evidence is what is left. So revisionists are wrong to dismiss the witnesses as the physical evidence has been tampered with. In such an instance the witness have become the best evidence and the physical evidence the worst. Revisionism on the hand cannot cope with that concept and keeps on running back to the tampered physical evidence to try and make its case.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

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

Re: Little train photo

Post by Nessie » Wed Apr 18, 2012 4:00 pm

David wrote:
......

So, to address your comment that the roof has been "tampered with."
I would disagree as far as intentionally is concerned.

While the Germans did blow up the building, they avoided destroying the
most important evidence of the alleged crime...part of the roof where there
are two holes!

The Soviets did not intentionally create "vent holes" in the roof but needed to
enter the "gas chamber."


You start with a complete contradiction. You say there was no intentional tampering with the roof and then happily admit the Nazis blew it up. :?

I cannot find any study of the explosion itself that brought down the roof. How much explosive was used? Where was it placed? Was it one big bang or did it take a number of smaller explosions? What effect did the explosions have on the holes (I am assuming there were holes)? I am assuming the holes were covered or even filled in to blow the roof up as having them there would allow the force of the explosion an escape route.
Could what are now assumed to be the holes have been caused by the explosion?

From the link

http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... 0354.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Pressac has also pointed out that the explosion has affected the argument re the holes

"Upper left, the hole in the ceiling is assumed to be one of the Zyklon-B introduction openings, but the positions of the two holes that can be seen today do not correspond to those of the US Air Force photograph taken on 25th August 1944. The reason for this as yet unexplained difference could well be simply that the roof shifted considerably when dynamited."

Then we have potential for holes to have been created or tampered with after the Soviets arrived and after the War had finished.

So my argument is that the roof of Leichenkeller I is too badly damaged to be conclusive either way as to the presence of holes. So we need to look at other evidence and the witness evidence cannot be dismissed and if anything is the best evidence we have.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

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

Re: Little train photo

Post by Nessie » Wed Apr 18, 2012 4:03 pm

Chester wrote:
Nessie wrote:
Chester wrote:Are you guys really using a doctored photo? Don't you realize that a doctored photo cannot be entered into evidence? :lol:
I do not know what photo you are referring to. . .
Look at the little train photo and let us know what anomalies you spot.
I don't see any

http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... ground.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... detail.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I take it now you will come out with man never landed on the moon look at the photos interpretations of the train photo.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

Chester
Account Locked
Posts: 347
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:08 pm

Re: Little train photo

Post by Chester » Wed Apr 18, 2012 4:27 pm

Nessie wrote:
Chester wrote:
Nessie wrote:
Chester wrote:Are you guys really using a doctored photo? Don't you realize that a doctored photo cannot be entered into evidence? :lol:
I do not know what photo you are referring to. . .
Look at the little train photo and let us know what anomalies you spot.
I don't see any

http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... ground.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... detail.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I take it now you will come out with man never landed on the moon look at the photos interpretations of the train photo.
What does the moon have to do with a little gauge train pasted on big train tracks? Do you see it? Or are you so blinded by your belief that you can't see it? What is the doctored train covering up? A reasoned response would be appreciated. Thanks

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 » Wed Apr 18, 2012 6:22 pm

Sorry I thought that the claims about doctored moon landing photos as part of the conspiracy that man has been to the moon was well known. That was what I was referring to.

There has been nothing in that image that made me think it had been doctored. I had not come across such a claim before. I dont see what makes you think it is a small guage train on large guage tracks. I see two sets of tracks with the train on one of them. I have no idea what it is supposed to be covering up.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

Chester
Account Locked
Posts: 347
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:08 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Chester » Wed Apr 18, 2012 6:51 pm

Nessie wrote:Sorry I thought that the claims about doctored moon landing photos as part of the conspiracy that man has been to the moon was well known. That was what I was referring to.

There has been nothing in that image that made me think it had been doctored. I had not come across such a claim before. I dont see what makes you think it is a small guage train on large guage tracks. I see two sets of tracks with the train on one of them. I have no idea what it is supposed to be covering up.
Get a better monitor. Hint: trains under power should have wheels on track. I don't know what is being covered up either but I do know that is a doctored photo and therefore carries no weight. You like to claim revisionists use tainted evidence. The fact is revisionists absolutly reject tainted evidence, and that photo is tainted.

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 » Wed Apr 18, 2012 7:44 pm

Please link me to the best quality/largest image of the train photo you have. I googled auschwitz train photo and cannot find anything other than images that look to me as the train is on its tracks.

If this is true

"The fact is revisionists absolutly reject tainted evidence, and that photo is tainted."

then revisionists cannot point to the roof of Leichenkeller I and say no holes, as it too is tainted.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

Chester
Account Locked
Posts: 347
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:08 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Chester » Wed Apr 18, 2012 8:37 pm

Nessie wrote:Please link me to the best quality/largest image of the train photo you have. I googled auschwitz train photo and cannot find anything other than images that look to me as the train is on its tracks.

If this is true

"The fact is revisionists absolutly reject tainted evidence, and that photo is tainted."

then revisionists cannot point to the roof of Leichenkeller I and say no holes, as it too is tainted.
I say the so called holes are an after thought because of the positioning of the steel, condition of the concrete around the 'hole'. Could they be called forged holes?

http://www.deathcamps.org/gas_chambers/ ... witz13.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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 » Thu Apr 19, 2012 9:30 am

I say that in the train image there is clearly a standard gauge track in front of two narrow gauge tracks and the train is on one of those.

EDIT - not so sure the further away line is a second narrow gauge track, but the one the train is on clearly is.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

Chester
Account Locked
Posts: 347
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:08 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Chester » Sat Apr 21, 2012 5:09 pm

Nessie, the wheels are not on the track. When you get a new monitor stop by the eye doctors office too. Exam time.

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 Apr 21, 2012 5:58 pm

Nope disagree. With my best reading glasses, biggest monitor and a ruler I say that train is on a narrow gauge track. Look at how close together the front buffers are and they are above two close together parallel lines which are the tracks. Shadow makes it impossible for you to claim the wheels are not on the track.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

Jerzy Ulicki-Rek
Poster
Posts: 103
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 9:26 am

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Jerzy Ulicki-Rek » Mon Oct 22, 2012 2:28 am

"The testimonial evidence clearly establishes that the gas was introduced through four openings into metal shafts. The strength of the evidence demands from Revisionists to provide particular strong and compelling evidence, which justifies to reject the testimonial evidence."

No :)
YOU have to prove it that it could happened in this way .
Step by step.
Start with:
Zyklon B.What is was and how it worked .
Then we go to a step nr.2 :)

Jerzy Ulicki-Rek

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Matthew Ellard » Mon Oct 22, 2012 7:12 am

Jerzy Ulicki-Rek wrote:"The testimonial evidence clearly establishes that the gas was introduced through four openings into metal shafts. The strength of the evidence demands from Revisionists to provide particular strong and compelling evidence, which justifies to reject the testimonial evidence."

YOU have to prove it that it could happened in this way .Step by step
You haven't read anything about the holocaust at all have you?

From the statement of Hans Stark, registrar of new arrivals, Auschwitz "Grabner* ordered me to pour Zyklon B into the opening because only one medical orderly had shown up. During a gassing Zyklon B had to be poured through both
openings of the gas-chamber room at the same time"


Testimony of SS private Hoeblinger
Then we drove to the gas chambers. The medical orderlies climbed a ladder, they had gas masks up there, and emptied the cans.

Testimony of SS-Unterscharfuehrer Pery Broad
The tins were filled to the brim with blue granules the size of peas. Immediately after
opening the tins, their contents was thrown into the holes which were then quickly covered


These are the SS men describing exactly how they did it. Are they all lying so they would get convicted? Please offer us your best "explanation" for their evidence as to why *you* claim it's false.

Jerzy Ulicki-Rek
Poster
Posts: 103
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 9:26 am

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Jerzy Ulicki-Rek » Mon Oct 22, 2012 7:29 am

Ok.You showed me your TOTAL ignorance on the subject ;I will give you onother -and last-chance:

Start with:
Zyklon B.What is was and how it worked .


According to manufacturer.Don't give me the holo-fable but scientific facts.
Understood?
Give me your best shot.

Jerzy Ulicki-Rek

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 Oct 22, 2012 12:33 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:These are the SS men describing exactly how they did it.
Hans Stark - crematorium I
Karl Höblinger - maybe so called "Bunker 1" or "Bunker 2".
Pery Broad - crematorium I

Thus these testimonies have little to do with alleged way of introduction of Zyklon B in crematorium II, this information for Höblinger and Broad is provided on page quoted by Matthew Ellard, thus he knew it and thus he deliberately omitted it or he confused crematorium I and "Bunkers" with crematorium II.

Jerzy Ulicki-Rek
Poster
Posts: 103
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 9:26 am

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Jerzy Ulicki-Rek » Mon Oct 22, 2012 1:15 pm

http://www.polskawalczaca.com/viewtopic ... 36&t=19618" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Jerzy

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 Oct 22, 2012 4:09 pm

Jerzy Ulicki-Rek wrote:Ok.You showed me your TOTAL ignorance on the subject ;I will give you onother -and last-chance:

Start with:
Zyklon B.What is was and how it worked .


According to manufacturer.Don't give me the holo-fable but scientific facts.
Understood?
Give me your best shot.

Jerzy Ulicki-Rek
General Wikipedia over view of Zyklon B

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zyklon_B" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and how hydrogen cyanide poisons

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_cyanide" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and detail about Zyklon B as it made now under the name Uragan D2

http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/b ... N_1.0_&a=d" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Matthew Ellard » Mon Oct 22, 2012 11:10 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:These are the SS men describing exactly how they did it.
Bob wrote: Hans Stark - crematorium I
Karl Höblinger - maybe so called "Bunker 1" or "Bunker 2".
Pery Broad - crematorium I
Thus these testimonies have little to do with alleged way of introduction of Zyklon B in crematorium II, this information for Höblinger and Broad is provided on page quoted by Matthew Ellard, thus he knew it and thus he deliberately omitted it or he confused crematorium I and "Bunkers" with crematorium II.
No Bob, No banana for you. Jerzy the Jew hater, said he wanted a step by explanation of how it could happen. He didn't say for only a particular gas chamber did he? Please practice your use of the English language before posting again.
Jerzy Ulicki-Rek wrote: YOU have to prove it that it could happened in this way .Step by step