Challenge number 14 - Zyklon B Introduction holes

[SKcz]

User Hans has attempted to answer my challenge number 14.

CHALLENGE 14.
C14. I challenge Hans to answer if he found introduction holes in the ceiling, because without the holes, no need to discuss
ventilation problem.

There is no evidence that the openings to introduce the gas did not exist at the time and in fact three of four openings have been most likely identified in the heavily damaged roof in the paper The Ruins of the Gas Chambers: A Forensic Investigation of Crematoriums at Auschwitz I and Auschwitz-Birkenau. It is noteworthy that the leading Revisionist Carlo Mattogno failed to demonstrate in his article Elusive holes of death that the openings did not exist.

You are using fallacy logic, you must prove that the openings existed. The true is that there is no proof that the openings ever existed, the best proof is physical material evidence, the roofs of alleged gas chambers.

Great, I know that paper, just show me some alleged holes in the roof of gas chamber. Tell me length and wide of these holes, show me photo and their location and their number. You can also wrote the source which served for characteristics of these holes and you can specify why this source(s) was or were chosen.

[Hannover]

Hans said:

Hans wrote:There is no evidence that the openings to introduce the gas did not exist at the time and in fact three of four openings have been most likely identified in the heavily damaged roof in the paper The Ruins of the Gas Chambers: A Forensic Investigation of Crematoriums at Auschwitz I and Auschwitz-Birkenau. It is noteworthy that the leading Revisionist Carlo Mattogno failed to demonstrate in his article Elusive holes of death that the openings did not exist.

Hans's logic is absurd. Asking to prove that something did not exist, when in fact he cannot prove that these 'holes' did exist.

Beside other threads, the bogus 'holes for the lowering of Zyklon-B into the gas chambers' has been utterly demolished in this thread:
'Cyanide Chemistry at Auschwitz'
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4111
also see:
'Altered Aerial Photos and the Shadows of Doom'
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3249

Here's some relevant text by me from another thread:

For 'survivor's who claim to have witnessed gassings at Auschwitz/Birkenau:

- How were your brethren tricked into thinking they were getting showers when the storyline states that SS men stood on the roof of the alleged 'gas chambers' and poured Zyklon-B granules (a pesticide) into the alleged openings on the roof? The alleged homicidal gas chamber was mostly buried, meaning the roof was just a few feet above ground level and in clear sight of the alleged next batch of 2,000 Jews who were allegedly standing just outside the 'gas chamber' door awaiting their turn.

- How were your brethren tricked into thinking they were getting showers when the storyline states that SS men on the roof removed the Zyklon-B containers that supposedly they had previously lowered into 'holes' in the 'gas chambers' roof? It takes hours for the Zyklon-B granules to finish releasing it's lethal cyanide load and the story states that batches of 2,0000 Jews were gassed in mere minutes within the 'gas chambers'. Allegedly there was another batch of Jews awaiting their turn just outside the alleged 'gas chamber' where they could watch this entire procedure, as well as being gassed where they stood.

- How were your brethren tricked into thinking they were getting showers when the storyline states that the 'gas chambers' ventilation systems removed the cyanide gas out into the open air where another batch of Jews were supposedly standing right next to the 'gas chambers'. And wouldn't the people dropping like flies in the vicinity have told you something?

- How were your brethren tricked into thinking they were getting showers when the storyline also states that the SS opened the alleged 'gas chambers doors' in just minutes in order to allow the cyanide to escape into the open air thereby gassing everyone in the general vicinity?

- How were your brethren tricked into thinking they were getting showers after viewing the dead bodies of allegedly gassed Jews, since the 4 ft. X 9 ft. hand drawn elevator which was supposed to have lifted 2,000 Jews in just a few minutes to the crematoria above the alleged ' gas chamber' would not have been capable of such a magical feat?

It's not even a contest.

- Hannover

[Moderator]

Hans, you have been challenged:

I challenge Hans to answer if he found introduction holes in the ceiling, because without the holes, no need to discuss ventilation problem.

No deflecting, no obfuscation or subject changing. If you cannot or will not directly address the challenge you must leave the thread. That's stated in the guidelines you agreed to. I deleted and saved your last, highly problematic post.
Moderator

[SKcz]

Hans attempted to answer challenge, but he only repeated this report which was refuted by Carlo Mattogno in “Auschwitz: The Case for Sanity“

http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... oles.shtml

Hans´s comment has been removed and I think that this wasn´t needed, I will deal with his claims anyway.

I try to use more sources to deal with this/his false report.

Your question seems to assume that either the openings can be clearly identified in the ruin today or they did not exist. This is in fact fallacy logic and does not take into account that the openings may have changed severely (for instance by dismantling work by the SS, explosives, pillar crushing through an opening, destruction carried out after the war) not allowing clear identification anymore or that there are covered under rubble and cannot be accessed.

No asumption, my opinion is that they never existed since nobody was able to locate them.

Here are pictures of rectangular openings in roof of former oven room of Krematoria which were demolished by explosion.






Here is round ventilation opening of Leichenkeller 2 (undressing room) of Krema II



Hans´s argument is false, these holes above has no magical abilities to stay in this great condition and survive explosion, so there is no need to see demolished original openings only in roof of alleged gas chamber.

Before we can start, we need to point out the main witness for these holes, his name is Michal Kula, important witness who allegedly made wire-mesh introduction columns which were installed to these holes.

“Among other things made in the locksmith’s workshop were the fake showers intended for the gas chambers, as well as the columns of wire netting for introducing the contents of cans of Zyklon into the gas chambers. This column had a height of 3 meters with a square cross-section (width) of about 70 cm. Such a column was constituted of three nets, one inside the other. The outside net was made of 3 mm iron wire stretched over angle irons measuring 50 mm x 10 mm. These angle irons were found all over the net and the upper and lower parts were linked by an angle iron of the same type. The mesh of the nets was square, measuring 45 mm. The second net was constructed in the same way and was inserted into the interior of the first at a distance of about 150 mm. The mesh of this net was square and measured about 25 mm. Both nets on angle irons were connected by an iron bar. The third part of the column was movable. It was an empty column made of a thin zinc lamina with a square section of about 150 mm. At the top it terminated in a cone and below in a flat square base. Angle irons of sheet metal were welded onto a thin bar of sheet metal at a distance of about 25 mm from the edge of this column. On these angle irons a thin net was stretched with square mesh of about 1 mm. This net ended at the base of the cone and from there toward the upper extension of the net ran a framework of sheet metal along the full height to the vertex of the cone. A can of Zyklon was poured from above into the distribution coneand thus a uniform distribution of the Zyklon on all four sides of the column was obtained. After evaporation of the gas the entire central column was withdrawn and the evaporated silica removed.”

Michal Kula, inmate no. 2718, in document “Inmate locksmith shop. Listing of inmates,” February 8, 1943,
testimony, Trial of Höss, vol. 2, June 11, 1945, pp. 99f.

Drawing of this device from Pressac using Kula description

(Jean-Claude Pressac, Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers, Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, New York, 1989)

Here is modern sketch of his alleged column.


Please note, that these sketches are presented as proof by the same project (holocaust-history) and by the same peoples as the ones which serve to Hans as source for findings of alleged holes. Is worth to note that Hans and the others try to dismiss Kula´s testimony since their own witness refute their claims.

So the holes must be square with side 70cm x 70cm and 0,49m². But more space is of course needed to install them, so the holes should be slightly larger. Alleged columns protruded 41 cm above the roof: 3.00 – (2.41 + 18) = 41 cm. According to Hans´s source, the roof was 22 cm, so they protruded 38cm according to them. (edit - I corrected wrong number)

Is good to point out this quote.

"Today, these four small holes that connected the wire-mesh columns and the chimneys cannot be observed in the ruined remains of the concrete slab.[...]While there is not certainty in this particular matter, it would have been logical to attach at the location where the columns had been some formwork at the bottom of the gas chamber ceiling, and pour some concrete in the holes, and thus restore the slab."

Van Pelt expert report, "Chapter IX, The Leuchter Report," p. 295.
http://holocaustdenialontrial.org/en/tr ... nse/van/ix

Hole number 1(Charles Provan´s no. 2)

Here is photo in 1945


Here is photo in 1990


Here are photos in 1992



Here is photo in 1997


Here is photo in 1998 (i lightened it to better see it)

credit – nizkor/Keren

Here is photo in 2000


Here is photo from Hans´s source

http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... re11.shtml

Here is photo from Hans´s source from below the hole


And finally, here is comparison of how this hole looked like in 1992 and how it looked like when Keren, McCarthy and Mazal investigated it. (I fliped photo from 1992 to match the same view) EDIT - user Toshiro rightfully pointed out, that I forgot to flip photo from 1992 also along the horizontal line to match both photos correctly, no you can see correct version, thanks for pointing this out.


Here is next comparison of how the hole was altered between 1992 and 1997

On the subject of the size of the opening the authors assert that its area was 0.5 m². In June 1990 that opening had a trapezoidal shape with a long side of 86 cm and a maximum width of 50 cm; the narrowest part was 43 cm, but, as Kula tells us, the openings had to measure at least 70 cm × 70 cm. It is thus easy to see why the authors keep quiet about Kula as a witness. In chapter 2.5.5. I have already exposed the trick van Pelt used to solve this problem: his drawing of the alleged Zyklon B introduction device with its reduction in size at the level of the ceiling from 70×70 to 48×48 centimeters! As Keren et al. collaborated with van Pelt in the preparation of his book, we may assume that this trick is the fruit of their joint strategy, agreed on by the four “specialists” for the purpose of smoothing out Kula’s above statement to some extent. Let me add here that the cross-sectional area given by these authors - 0.5×0.5 m² - is wrong: the effective area is in fact necessarily smaller than the one resulting from its two large dimensions (0.82×0.5 = 0.41 m²) due to the trapezoidal shape of the opening.

Calculation - (0.82×0.43)+(0.07×0.82÷2) = 0.38 m²

Auschwitz: The Case For Sanity, Carlo Mattogno, 2005, 2006, 2010, p. 483

What we have here is a “little“ swindle, the hole was in original even smaller than in 1990 and some “helper“ coarsely enlarged this hole and made it more square with chisel. This hole was 86cm x 50cm and with 0,41m² in 1990, we can see that according to photos this hole was even smaller in 1945.

As we can see, that “helper“ even didn´t bother to remove rebar which prevent to install some device as alleged. We can see clear traces of chiseling to make this hole more believeable.

According to Provan, this hole was 25cm x 25cm, based on testimony of Karl Schultze

"The building was eight meters wide and thirty meters long. Inside it was completely empty. The height came to 2.6 meters. In the ceiling were four square openings, 25 x 25 centimeters."


Karl Schultze, Protokolle des Todes [Transcript of Death], Der Spiegel, 40/1993, p. 162.

Please, notice the “convergence of evidence“

Hans and the others are not able to locate alleged chimneys which protruded from the roof, where are the traces of bricks and mortar?

This hole is not introduction hole for Zyklon B and someone was very busy to make this hole looks like introduction hole which prove that his hole was never introduction hole.

Hole number 2(Charles Provan´s no. 6)

Photo from Hans´s source


Same photo with „upgrade“ from Hans´s source


One need lot of fantasy to see hole so they supported our fantasy with dotted lines. According to Hans and his source, this hole is “estimated“ to be 50cm x 50cm. This is agian with contradiction with Kula and the other witnesses which claims different measurements. This also contradict their previous hole no. 1 which was clearly smaller in 1945 and hardly 50cm.

Hans and the others are not able to locate alleged chimneys which protruded from the roof, where are the traces of bricks and mortar?

This hole is not introduction hole for Zyklon B for one single reason aside these mentioned above, because I don´t see anything which signalize alleged introduction hole.

Hole number 3

Photo from Hans´s source


Yes, somewhere in this photo there "is" a hole.

According to Hans´s source

“Hole 3's projected location is in an area of the roof that is badly damaged and covered with rubble (Figure 15). Preliminary research suggests that the hole itself may have been damaged when the roof collapsed on a portion of its own support structure. This hypothesis, however, requires further investigation. At the time this study was conducted, the researchers did not have permission to conduct the large-scale movement of rubble necessary to identify the third hole, but hope permission may be forthcoming.“
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... oles.shtml

So, hole “is“ there, but nobody can see it, nobody was allowed to see introduction hole for Zyklon B which can prove gassing and nobody ever bother to remove rubbish to see the hole, Hans´s source presented only hypothesis and belief that there is some hole.

I would like to point out Hans´s “logical“ approach.

According to Mazal et al., hole number 3 is supposed to be in an area heavily covered by rubble and not accessible without its removal. Mattogno failed to show that their projected location of the opening is in fact accessible and visible and so that the opening should be visible if it exists.

As you can see, according to Hans, Mattogno is the one who failed, he has no problem that his source is not able to provide even one single proof of existence of some hole under rubble on the photo, but Mattogno is the one who should be blamed that hole is not visible, sweet. We can also see that Hans used “if it exists“ which means that he even don´t know if some hole exist and he isn´t sure so he doubt even his own proof of hole.

Do someone see elephant in the photo?

As we can see, this hole even don´t exist so no need to bother for what purpose non-existent hole served.

Hole number 4

Photo from Hans´s source

“Hole 4 can be identified by a pattern in the rebar (Figure 16) at the very northern end of what remains of the roof. […]. Hole 4 can be identified by the unimpeded square opening set in the rebar in 1943. The surrounding edges were shattered by the explosion and the folding of the roof, leaving only the telltale rebar latticework. Its measurements are 0.5×0.5 m. […]. The deliberately looped rebar proves that this hole, as almost certainly the other three, was cast at the time the concrete was poured in January 1943.“

http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... oles.shtml

According to Hans´s source, this one is again 50cm x 50cm. We can see contradictions since official story speaks about making holes secretly after the roof was completed and not that were made during construction of the roof, which is supported by witness Walter Schreiber.

L.: Do you know anything about introduction hatches in the reinforced concrete ceilings?

S.: No, not from memory. But since these cellars were also intended to serve as air raid shelters as a secondary purpose, introduction holes would have been counter-productive. I would certainly have objected to such an arrangement.

Walter Schreiber (Supervising Engineer at the Kattowitz agency of the Huta corporation, which built the crematoria at Birkenau.) Interview with Walter Lüftl, Werner Rademacher (=Walter Lüftl), “Engineer’s Deathbed Confession: We Built Morgues, not Gas Chambers,” The Revisionist 2(3) (2004), pp. 296-297.

They told us this story to explain why there are no plans, just nothing about alleged introduction holes which would be needed to introduce Zyklon B. Now, propably in 1998 they found rebar of alleged hole which means that hole was projected and made during the construction, so contradiction. Since there is no proof that this hole is in original condition and we know that other hole was altered, is highly possible that this hole is again altered to make it more believe able.

We can see that there is no rectangular shape of concrete which is explained as “edges were shattered by the explosion“. This again contradict their alleged dimensions 50cm x 50cm, since the hole was allegedly shattered by explosion to explain missing shape and thus could never have been 50cm x 50cm. Original dimension of this hole was of course lower if this “explosion shattering“ is true. They again contradicted their previous holes to opportunistic save this one.

We can also see bent rebars which should have to be removed in the case that this really served as introduction hole.

Summary:

1-Hole 1 was heavily altered to make this hole believeable as alleged introduction hole which prove more than enough that we are dealing with total swindle.

2-According to Hans and his source, the witnesses were again confused, they also ignore important witness and sources which spoke about 70cm x 70cm wire columns which protruded through the ceiling which means that holes must be larger than 70cm x 70cm.

3-According to Hans, the main witness who made these columns was confused too and he was mistaken about correct measurements. This didn´t help to Hans.

4-Hans and his source aren´t able to even produce some testimony which support their claims and on the contrary, they clearly inore witnesses which refute their claims.

5-Hole 3 don´t exist since nobody was able to locate it and show it.

6-Hans and his source contradict their own claims about the holes and they contradict official story as well.

7-Hans and his source contradict Pelt´s claim, that holes were allegedly sealed up by Germans before they left the camp and cannot be seen.

8-Pelt´s claim about sealing of the holes is technical nonsense, holes cannot be sealed without leaving a trace.

9-There is nothing in Krema II which indicate that some holes were sealed.

10-Pelt refuted his own theory about sealing of these holes as an explanation why they couldn´t be observed, when he accepted report from Keren, McCarthy and Mazal in his Case for Auschwitz and during Lipstadt trial.

11-Hans and his source was not able to locate traces of alleged concrete chimneys which covered every introduction hole, they did not bother to locate them because there are no traces.

12-Finally, Hans and his source even contradict their own sources, they use Kula´s descriprion of columns, they use sketches of this device, they use precise measurements, but totally ignore these own “paper“ sources when they looked for alleged holes on the place of crime, because their own sources refute their alleged holes when they must deal with the most important evidence, with the physical evidence on the crime scene.

Conclusion:

The alleged introduction holes for Zyklon B, which contained alleged wire-mesh introduction columns were not located. There is not even single proof that these holes ever existed as proved by revisionists. These alleged holes were made when the investigation groups needed to get acces to alleged gas chamber, or they were caused by supporting pillars when the roof was dynamited and when the roof fell on the pillars. Some of these holes were heavily altered to support lies.

Almost all credit goes to revisionist Carlo Mattogno, Germar Rudolf, Robert Faurisson and the others, I pointed up only several own points, most of them are from them and I agree with them completely.

No holes, No...try to guess Hans.

[Hans]

Hans attempted to answer challenge, but he only repeated this report which was refuted by Carlo Mattogno in “Auschwitz: The Case for Sanity“

I cited the evidence from the report but at the same time also compared it against Mattogno’s writings and pointed out why Mattogno’s response (whether in Case for Sanity or in Auschwitz Lies or in the Revisionist) does not refute the findings. I even rejected an argument made in the report, because I think it is not properly backed up, which suggests some critically reading on my side and is incompatible with only repeating a source.

The deletion of the posting, by the way, was not only unnecessary but it was fully unjustified, since I did not dodge but explicitly replied to the question (whether you agree with my arguments or not). The posting has been saved and published here. In case this or any future posting is likewise deleted without comprehensible reason, I will forward a public complain to CODOH's Bradley Smith if he thinks that the censorship Anti-Revisionists are subjected to (see also here) is in accordance with the spirit of Open Debate on the Holocaust.

Hans´s argument is false, these holes above has no magical abilities to stay in this great condition and survive explosion, so there is no need to see demolished original openings only in roof of alleged gas chamber.

You are showing photographs of the ventilation openings of the oven room of crematorium 3, which immediately raises the question why you (or Mattogno) do NOT show the five ventilation openings of the oven room of crematorium 2, the one which we are actually talking about. The answer is apparently that the openings there are covered under rubble or are heavily damaged. So we have two extreme cases: in the oven room of crematorium 3 all ventilation openings can be still identified and are partly intact, whereas at crematorium 2 Mattogno cannot not show us a single ventilation opening of the furnace room. This suggests – what is a priori reasonable anyway and it is surprising I need to point this out to you – that openings in a roof may or may not survive explosion and collapse.

There is no such rule and openings in a roof do not have a magical ability (to borrow the phrase from you) to stay fully or partly intact. I also note that some of the ventilation openings of the furnace room of crematorium 3 were in fact partly damaged with large junk missing or broken away at an edge, which already suggests that a reinforced opening could suffer severe damage upon explosion and collapse. Openings in a roof may stay intact, but they may also be partly or completely disintegrated or covered under rubble. It depends on the structure, the location and amount of explosives and eventually on the characteristics of the collapse. This is exactly why I extended in my deleted posting your question for the criteria that “if it can be shown that certain locations in the ruins are good candidates for the openings OR if it can be shown that the estimated location of the openings is in fact covered under rubble” in order to take also these cases into account.

But aside explosion and collapse, there is in fact another possible cause of damage of the gas introduction openings, which is direct dismantling work at the openings. We know from the evidence that there were wire mesh devices and solid chimneys at the openings and it is likely that the devices were dismantled prior blowing up the basement and possibly also the chimneys were dismantled at this occasion, either by explosives or by prisoners’ work, both could have resulted in severe damage of the openings. A third cause of damage especially of opening 1 are gold diggers as well as not so well informed people investigating the basement and enlarging the opening to gain access to the underlying cavity.

Before we can start, we need to point out the main witness for these holes, his name is Michal Kula, important witness who allegedly made wire-mesh introduction columns which were installed to these holes.

[…]

Please note, that these sketches are presented as proof by the same project (holocaust-history) and by the same peoples as the ones which serve to Hans as source for findings of alleged holes. Is worth to note that Hans and the others try to dismiss Kula´s testimony since their own witness refute their claims.

So the holes must be square with side 70cm x 70cm and 0,49m². But more space is of course needed to install them, so the holes should be slightly larger. Alleged columns protruded 41 cm above the roof: 3.00 – (2.41 + 18) = 41 cm. According to Hans´s source, the roof was 22 cm, so they protruded 38cm according to them. (edit - I corrected wrong number)

I already addressed the argument about Kula’s testimony in the posting that was deleted, but which you have read:

“Another note on Mattogno, he has a major obsession with Michal Kula and his dimension of 70 cm. If we believe him, then either Kula is right (or his interpretation of Kula) or there were no openings for introducing the gas, as if nothing would exist in between. But things are not as simple in the real world. It is possible that Kula was (without knowing) describing the dimensions of the device for crematorium 3 and that it was different for crematorium 2. It is also possible that Kula was simply mistaken on the dimension. It is – thirdly – also possible that only the second mesh with 50 * 50 cm went through the roof. None of these possibilities is considered by Mattogno with his all or nothing fallacy. “

Since the material evidence found by Mazal et al. strongly suggests the openings were about 50 x 50 cm, it is clear either Kula was either mistaken on this detail (which is a minor error considering that human memory is imperfect), or he was describing the device for crematorium 3 which may have had larger dimensions, or his description is incomplete and the outer mesh did not went trough the rough. In any case, there is no reason to reject either Kula as evidence for the device or the findings of Mazal et al.

What we have here is a “little“ swindle, the hole was in original even smaller than in 1990 and some “helper“ coarsely enlarged this hole and made it more square with chisel. This hole was 86cm x 50cm and with 0,41m² in 1990, we can see that according to photos this hole was even smaller in 1945.

I challenge you to show that the hole was even smaller in 1945 and specifically that it was significantly below 50 x 50 cm, which is the only situation the opening would collide with Mazal et al.’s thesis. Unless the hole was at any time significantly smaller than 50 x 50 cm, any alteration of the shape or size of the hole in the 90s is of little relevance for the question whether it was a gas introduction opening in 1943 – 1945.

It is also noteworthy that SKcz – just like Mattogno - entirely ignored that there seems to be a drop of tar at an edge of the opening, which is in fact strong evidence the hole was made at the time the tar was put on the roof. Is there any reason why Revisionists do not want to talk about this?

One need lot of fantasy to see hole so they supported our fantasy with dotted lines. According to Hans and his source, this hole is “estimated“ to be 50cm x 50cm. This is agian with contradiction with Kula and the other witnesses which claims different measurements. This also contradict their previous hole no. 1 which was clearly smaller in 1945 and hardly 50cm.

Hans and the others are not able to locate alleged chimneys which protruded from the roof, where are the traces of bricks and mortar?

This hole is not introduction hole for Zyklon B for one single reason aside these mentioned above, because I don´t see anything which signalize alleged introduction hole.

There is clearly a hole in the roof at the place shown as the concrete roof is not intact anymore there. So the only question remains is whether the hole was entirely created by the explosion and collapse of the basement and by post-war dismantling or whether it was a gas introduction opening severely damaged by dismantling work or explosion and collapse of the basement. Neither Mattogno nor SKcz can show that the hole was created by or after the destruction of the basement. Therefore it is indeed a candidate for a gas introduction opening and its approximate location does correspond to expected location of hole number 2 according to the pattern on aerial and ground photographs and the other two located openings.

As you can see, according to Hans, Mattogno is the one who failed, he has no problem that his source is not able to provide even one single proof of existence of some hole under rubble on the photo, but Mattogno is the one who should be blamed that hole is not visible, sweet. We can also see that Hans used “if it exists“ which means that he even don´t know if some hole exist and he isn´t sure so he doubt even his own proof of hole.

Do someone see elephant in the photo?

As we can see, this hole even don´t exist so no need to bother for what purpose non-existent hole served.quote

This is blatantly false. We do not see that the hole does not exist.

The area, where the opening should be is not accessible, so that neither positive nor negative material evidence for its existence is available. We cannot answer the question with material evidence whether there is an opening or not at the place where it is expected if mass gassing were true. The emphasis is here on “with material evidence”, since we can answer the question by using other evidence: from the overwhelming testimonial evidence for mass gassings in Auschwitz in general (for instance see my blog posting Homicidal gassings at the first Frankfurt Auschwitz trial – A statistical survey) but also in the basement in particular, as well from the photographic evidence and the findings of Mazal et al. on openings number 1, 2 and 4, it is very likely that opening 3 does exist and is covered under rubble.

Skcz also quotes the testimony of Walter Schreiber but ignores that I already pointed out in the deleted posting (which he read), that Schreiber became chief inspector of Huta in Kattowitz AFTER the crematoria were already completed. In other words, there is no reason to believe that his knowledge is anything else than guess work or at best hearsay. Also his age of 90 does not exactly provide much confidence in his memory, which can severely decline at high age. If Schreiber had testified positive on homicidal gas chamber, it is safe to say that Revisionists would attack his testimony exactly for these reasons, but since he testified negative this is not supposed to be a problem?

We can see that there is no rectangular shape of concrete which is explained as “edges were shattered by the explosion“. This again contradict their alleged dimensions 50cm x 50cm, since the hole was allegedly shattered by explosion to explain missing shape and thus could never have been 50cm x 50cm. Original dimension of this hole was of course lower if this “explosion shattering“ is true

The original dimension would not be lower, because the measurement of 50 cm x 50 cm is based on the distance of the rebar lattice work not on the damaged concrete.

We can also see bent rebars which should have to be removed in the case that this really served as introduction hole.

Why would anybody want remove the steel bars at an opening which is already a weak spot anyway? In contrary, one would instead of removing rather put additional steel bars for reinforcement and cut and hook the bar going through the opening. There is no evidence for additional steel bars at Mazal et al. holes, which was not considered necessary apparently to sustain structural stability, however there is clear evidence of cutting and hooking for openings 2 and 4, which is exactly how it would have been done if they were created during the construction of the basement (see here).

1-Hole 1 was heavily altered to make this hole believeable as alleged introduction hole which prove more than enough that we are dealing with total swindle.

Logical fallacy. One cannot conclude from alterations of the hole (in the 90s) that the hole did not exist in the roof in 1943 – 1945. For instance, a possible scenario without “total swindle” is that the opening existed in 1943, was heavily damaged upon dismantling and then altered in the 90s by somebody who genuinely belives in homicidal gassings in the basement. If you like it or not, alterations in the 90s do not prove nor implicate that the hole was no gas introduction opening.

2-According to Hans and his source, the witnesses were again confused, they also ignore important witness and sources which spoke about 70cm x 70cm wire columns which protruded through the ceiling which means that holes must be larger than 70cm x 70cm

3-According to Hans, the main witness who made these columns was confused too and he was mistaken about correct measurements. This didn´t help to Hans.

Apart from the fact that it is unclear how a minor mistake in Kula’s testimony would not help to bring his testimony in accordance with Mazal et al.’s findings, this is an incomplete summary of my arguments. I offered in fact two more explanations.

5-Hole 3 don´t exist since nobody was able to locate it and show it.

From the finding that the assumed location of the opening is covered under rubble, it cannot be concluded that it does not exist.

10-Pelt refuted his own theory about sealing of these holes as an explanation why they couldn´t be observed, when he accepted report from Keren, McCarthy and Mazal in his Case for Auschwitz and during Lipstadt trial.

I fail to see the point you are trying to make. It is proper methodology and scientific to reject a thesis as soon as new evidence comes to light. Van Pelt was on the wrong track when he put forward the thesis that the openings may have been sealed, he did however also not study the basement as carefully and detailed as Mazal et al. did.

11-Hans and his source was not able to locate traces of alleged concrete chimneys which covered every introduction hole, they did not bother to locate them because there are no traces.

Since the chimneys (visible on the February 1943 ground photograph) cannot be identified today, it is likely they have been dismantled, and the severe destruction of the openings does not allow identifying their traces at the roof.

Point 12 is a repetition of point 2 and 3.

Conclusion:

The alleged introduction holes for Zyklon B, which contained alleged wire-mesh introduction columns were not located. There is not even single proof that these holes ever existed as proved by revisionists. These alleged holes were made when the investigation groups needed to get acces to alleged gas chamber, or they were caused by supporting pillars when the roof was dynamited and when the roof fell on the pillars. Some of these holes were heavily altered to support lies.

Actually none of the statements in your conclusion is factually correct.

Three out of four gas introduction openings have been most likely been located and Revisionists have not provide considerable evidence and reason to challenge these findings. The drop of tar at an edge of hole number 1 as well as properly cut and hooked rebar as usually done with openings in reinforced concrete is evidence that the openings were created during the construction of the basement. There is no convincing evidence that the holes were made by the “investigations groups” or were caused (and not simply enlarged and damaged) by crushing of supporting pillars. There exists evidence for one hole being altered in the 90s (while the hole clearly existed already in 1945, so it cannot be argued that there is evidence the hole was created after the war), but not for “some of these holes”.

[Toshiro]

I attach three photos. The green line represents 86 cm, as measured by Mattogno. In pixels, its length is 460 px.

First photo, with a red square with dimensions 267x267 pixels, or 50x50 cm:

Second photo, with a a yellow square with dimensions 234x215 pixels, or 44x40 cm, as the maximum possible hole size, and I'm being generous:

Third photo, with a blue square with dimensions 374x374 pixels, or 70x70 cm:

So, as you can see, Kula's 70x70 claim is obviously wrong, but so is Hans' 50x50. The believers will have to change their story (again) that the holes were around 40x40 cm in size.

[Toshiro]

I'll also attach some more photos for some perspective, so even those who've never been to Auschwitz can see the first hole clearly. The only view missing is from north to south. I also added a compass.

Photo 1, from above, hole marked with red circle:

Photo 2, same hole marked with red circle:

Photo 3, close-up, yellow circle is where tar was found:

Photo 4, close-up, yellow circle is where tar was found (taken October 1991):

Photo 5, close-up from above, yellow circle is where tar was found (taken August 1997):

Photo 6, different view a little from the side, yellow circle is where tar was found (taken 1998):

Photo 7, view from west, yellow circle is where tar was found (taken July 1992):

Photo 8, close-up of eastern side, yellow circle is where tar was found:

Photo 9, close-up of western side

Photo 10, view from east (taken June 1990):

Photo 11, close-up of edge with tar:

Photo 12, close-up of edge with tar:

Regarding the tar, how do we know the explosion couldn't have caused this? A lot of heat is released that could melt the tar, a small fire could erupt from the explosion and melt the tar, sun rays could have melt it, the Soviets could accidentally melt some of the tar while they were cutting through (unless they used a chisel and a hammer). There is a big smudge of tar over the drips that resembles a hand (best visible on photos 3 and 6), and this is likely where the drips came from.

[SKcz]

You are too generous, you used photos from time when the hole was already altered as is shown with comparisons, in 1945 and in 1992, the hole is clearly smaller so believers must change the dimensions far below 40cm, when we take into consideration that according to believers the holes were "magically" destroyed by explosion so no shape is visible, they must change their dimensions to around 30 cm I guess.

Problem for believers is that Kula is propably the only witness which can know correct measurements, so no suprise that they ignore him or try to say that he was wrong. Even in the case of 40cm or 30cm holes, there aren´t such a holes, their shape or traces of chimneys can´t disappear as proven by photos of oven room or ventilation hole in "undressing room". Is also impossible that explsion could remove all rebars from shape of the hole, I mean, they say that explosion demolished concrete shape and shattered shape of holes, but where are remaining rebars which could show the original shape? Concrete was shattered according to believers, but rebars are where? They vanished too? We are dealing with lies.

These holes are clearly made after war during investigation or caused by explosion and falling on pillars, some of them are complete fraud, because as we can see, someone heavily altered a few holes to make them look like introduction holes, which prove that they never existed, becaue why need to alter them if they are genuine?

Kula was not "wrong", nobody was "wrong", they "only" lied and introduction holes and columns never existed, this is the reason why they are all "wrong", lies are always wrong.

As I see, Hans is not able to prove their existence, nobody is able, same situation as with challenges about ventilation system, end of story.

[Toshiro]

Or Hannover’s false claim that “these 'holes' do NOT correspond to the so called 'Train photo'” when Mazal et al. have shown they are?

Incorrect. Mattogno has shown they don't:

Green marks are the two objects, grey marks are the holes.

Or is it perhaps Toshiro’s claim that “hole number 2 was made by the Poles or Soviets sometime after the inspection”, which he just forgot to rigorously demonstrate to the reader?

So, the Soviets made Provan's hole number 7 after liberation for some "unknown purpose," but hole number 2 was definitely not made by the Soviets, honestly! I'm sure Hans can demonstrate that for us. Just like there is a third object on the train photograph, but this one wasn't an introduction chimney, honestly! So let's just ignore that stupid object and that stupid hole!

Or shall we read Toshiro’s mocking of Caroll Lucas’ age of 79 or 80, yet citing as evidence against the holes the testimony of a 90 (!) years old Walter Schreiber, a) who was NOT chief engineer of Huta in Kattowitz at the time the crematoria were built, b) whose knowledge on what was actually going on at the construction site has to be hearsay and c) whose comment on blueprints is irrelevant as the openings were not drawn into the blueprints passed on to Huta?

Skcz also quotes the testimony of Walter Schreiber but ignores that I already pointed out in the deleted posting (which he read), that Schreiber became chief inspector of Huta in Kattowitz AFTER the crematoria were already completed. In other words, there is no reason to believe that his knowledge is anything else than guess work or at best hearsay. Also his age of 90 does not exactly provide much confidence in his memory, which can severely decline at high age. If Schreiber had testified positive on homicidal gas chamber, it is safe to say that Revisionists would attack his testimony exactly for these reasons, but since he testified negative this is not supposed to be a problem?

And because he wasn't CHIEF inspector at the time, that somehow proves he wasn't at some other position, like a regular inspector? He must have been if he was upgraded to chief inspector. His age is also irrelevant, because unlike Caroll Lucas, he didn't have to thoroughly analyse a photo with his eyes. I don't think anybody would hire a person with bad eyesight as a photo analyst. And if Schreiber had testified positive on the gas chamber, we wouldn't attack his testimony for his "bad memory," as if him having a bad memory would somehow make him claim gas chambers, but because he was either forced to do so or feared imprisonment so he lied to save himself the trouble. The point is, he told the truth.

[Toshiro]

You are too generous, you used photos from time when the hole was already altered as is shown with comparisons, in 1945 and in 1992, the hole is clearly smaller so believers must change the dimensions far below 40cm, when we take into consideration that according to believers the holes were "magically" destroyed by explosion so no shape is visible, they must change their dimensions to around 30 cm I guess.

Unfortunately without any rulers and measurements we don't really know how much they were increased. We would need photos taken from above to correctly compare them, not from an angle.

As I see, Hans is not able to prove their existence, nobody is able, same situation as with challenges about ventilation system, end of story.

Correct:

It appears, therefore, that the existing holes that can be found are false and the non-existing holes that cannot be found are true.

[Hans]

Toshiro,

I am afraid that your method of measuring the opening from a photograph does not substitute or trump the onsite measurement of approximately 50 x 50 cm by Mazal et al. You are claiming that the green line is 86 cm according to Mattogno, but this is not correct. Mattogno said the longest distance from side to side was 86 cm in 1992, but the picture you use is from 1997 and Mattogno argues the openings has been enlarged since then. Therefore, we do not know how long your green line actually is.

In fact, Mattogno also noted that the "teeth" of the openings were separated by 43 cm in 1992, but with your scaling it is only 33 cm in 1997. I can accept that an opening increased between 1992 and 1997 but not that it gets smaller as time goes on. Incidentally, if we add the 10 cm error to your measurements of the maximal square opening we are at 50 x 50 cm.

It is also worth to point out that even if your 40 cm x 40 cm were true (there is no reason to accept it, but for the sake of argument), it would not show or suggest the falseness of the gas introduction openings.

[Hans]

Incorrect. Mattogno has shown they don't:

Actually the overlap of model and photograph by Mazal et al. shows that there is correspondence between the chimnies and the openings:

http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/holes-report/holes-figure6.shtml

Or is it perhaps Toshiro’s claim that “hole number 2 was made by the Poles or Soviets sometime after the inspection”, which he just forgot to rigorously demonstrate to the reader?

So, the Soviets made Provan's hole number 7 after liberation for some "unknown purpose," but hole number 2 was definitely not made by the Soviets, honestly! I'm sure Hans can demonstrate that for us.

You did not demonstrate that the "hole number 2 was made by the Poles or Soviets sometime after the inspection", so we have no basis to reject the interpretation of the hole as gas introduction opening. I did not claim that opening number 1 (Provan's 2) was "definitely not made by the Soviets", so I do not need to demonstrate that for you. I argued that since there is no evidence that opening number 1 was made by the Soviets or Poles after the war, it is a good candidate for one of gas introduction openings (whose existences is shown by numerous testimonial evidence), especially since its location fits to rightmost chimney on the February 1943 ground photograph.

Just like there is a third object on the train photograph, but this one wasn't an introduction chimney, honestly! So let's just ignore that stupid object and that stupid hole!

The "third object" does not correspond to any physical or aerial photographic evidence of gas introduction openings nor does it corresponds to common sense to put a gas introduction opening there, therefore it cannot or should not be assigned as a gas introduction chimney and therefore it is likely of different origin. This is scientific approach, by the way, to go where the evidence leads one.

And because he wasn't CHIEF inspector at the time, that somehow proves he wasn't at some other position, like a regular inspector?

If he was inspector for Huta in Kattowitz and responsible for matters in Auschwitz, it would have been reasonable for Lüftl to mention it as it is the most important information to know, instead of the irrelevant detail when he was chief inspector. The same is true for Schreiber's own statement, he only mentioned his responsibility for matters in Auschwitz as chief inspector. This strongly suggests that Schreiber was not responsible for anything related to Auschwitz prior later 1943.

His age is also irrelevant, because unlike Caroll Lucas, he didn't have to thoroughly analyse a photo with his eyes.

Memory declines with age and time (are you denying this?), so that Schreiber's very high age of 90 is very relevant. In contrast, Lucas did not had to employ much memory for his analysis, so that his age of 70 or 80 according to you is indeed of much less relevance. Eyesight is also not a particular relevant issue as he had technical assistance and employed three microscopes to analyze the photographs.

[Hans]

You are too generous, you used photos from time when the hole was already altered as is shown with comparisons, in 1945 and in 1992, the hole is clearly smaller so believers must change the dimensions far below 40cm, when we take into consideration that according to believers the holes were "magically" destroyed by explosion so no shape is visible, they must change their dimensions to around 30 cm I guess.

I see that you failed to show that the opening was much less than 50 x 50 cm in 1945, which means that Mazal et al.'s finding that it is a gas introduction opening with 50 x 50 cm is not challenged or shown to be false.

The rest of your posting is just a repetition of what you already said and most importantly, what I already thoroughly addressed in my previous postings.

[Toshiro]

Good point, I didn't think of that. I wonder why Mattogno didn't provide a measurement for his 1997 photo, seeing as he had a ruler placed over the hole. Ah well. Mazal et al. said "We estimate its size at approximately 0.5 m square," note the "estimate." If they had measured it correctly as they should, there would have been a definite measurement, not an "estimate." That's because it's not a 50x50 square, they just rounded it up to 50 centimetres.

Edit:
I've edited the photo, and used Mattogno's "maximum breadth of 50 cm," because the north or south edges weren't enlarged. This is 261 pixels (give or take a margin of error of ~5 pixels). The photo is taken slightly at an angle, so the 43 centimeters separating the "tooth" from the hole on the east side don't add up. This was previously making me believe I was making a mistake, but alas, it's just the angle, however small it may be. We also don't know at what angle Mattogno measured the distance of 86, or how much the eastern edge got increased, but it is irrelevant, as we have the maximum breadth of 50 centimetres which we know did not change and is not at an angle. So here, a 50x50 cm square superimposed on the photograph:

It is also worth to point out that even if your 40 cm x 40 cm were true (there is no reason to accept it, but for the sake of argument), it would not show or suggest the falseness of the gas introduction openings.

The hole definitely must have been smaller than 50x50 cm. Of course it wouldn't change a thing, you people would just claim the "insertion device" was smaller, even if the holes were found to be 20 centimetres. We've already come from 70 centimetres down to 50 centimetres, and it's obvious now that the hole must have been even smaller than that.

Actually the overlap of model and photograph by Mazal et al. shows that there is correspondence between the chimnies and the openings:

http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... ure6.shtml

Wrong. The first object is on the eastern side, whereas the hole is on the western side and 3 meters away from the object. It's Mazal's word against Mattogno's. I'll stick with Mattogno, thank you.

You did not demonstrate that the "hole number 2 was made by the Poles or Soviets sometime after the inspection", so we have no basis to reject the interpretation of the hole as gas introduction opening. I did not claim that opening number 1 (Provan's 2) was "definitely not made by the Soviets", so I do not need to demonstrate that for you. I argued that since there is no evidence that opening number 1 was made by the Soviets or Poles after the war, it is a good candidate for one of gas introduction openings (whose existences is shown by numerous testimonial evidence), especially since its location fits to rightmost chimney on the February 1943 ground photograph.

And seeing as the Soviets or Poles definitely did make at least one hole, namely Provan's number 7, we have no basis to reject the interpretation of Provan's hole number 2 as being made by the very same people. And again, it's Mazal's word against Mattogno's. It doesn't fit the train photo.

The "third object" does not correspond to any physical or aerial photographic evidence of gas introduction openings nor does it corresponds to common sense to put a gas introduction opening there, therefore it cannot or should not be assigned as a gas introduction chimney and therefore it is likely of different origin. This is scientific approach, by the way, to go where the evidence leads one.

Yes, let's ignore it. It must have been a box full of Zyklon-B canisters. Definitely.

If he was inspector for Huta in Kattowitz and responsible for matters in Auschwitz, it would have been reasonable for Lüftl to mention it as it is the most important information to know, instead of the irrelevant detail when he was chief inspector. The same is true for Schreiber's own statement, he only mentioned his responsibility for matters in Auschwitz as chief inspector. This strongly suggests that Schreiber was not responsible for anything related to Auschwitz prior later 1943.

There were probably more inspectors/engineers or people at other positions, people not worthy of mention, the supervisor of whom was the chief inspector. He had a lower rank prior becoming a supervisor, and there is no reason to think he did not know what his corporation was building or that he was not part of it. He had seen the invoices and plans of the crematoria himself and deduced himself that they couldn't have been gas chambers.

Memory declines with age and time (are you denying this?), so that Schreiber's very high age of 90 is very relevant. In contrast, Lucas did not had to employ much memory for his analysis, so that his age of 70 or 80 according to you is indeed of much less relevance. Eyesight is also not a particular relevant issue as he had technical assistance and employed three microscopes to analyze the photographs.

No, I'm not denying that, but again, his memory is irrelevant. Do you think he "forgot" there was a gas chamber and that's why he said what he did? Of course not. Again, his memory is irrelevant and you're just grasping for straws. Lucas didn't need to employ any of his memory, he only needed to analyse the photographs, and at his age, that is a problem. Claiming "eyesight is also not a particular relevant issue" is downright stupid. You sure you don't want to take that back? His eyesight is the number one and only issue, a big issue at that. Bad excuse on your side. Very, very bad.
He had "technical assistance"? What, you mean Mazal and Keren on his left and right shoulders? Did he ask them for "assistance" when he couldn't see something clearly? Great, he used a microscope. Still doesn't change the fact that his eyesight was not good.

[SKcz]

I cited the evidence from the report but at the same time also compared it against Mattogno’s writings and pointed out why Mattogno’s response (whether in Case for Sanity or in Auschwitz Lies or in the Revisionist) does not refute the findings. I even rejected an argument made in the report, because I think it is not properly backed up, which suggests some critically reading on my side and is incompatible with only repeating a source.

You pointed up, correct, but did not refute Mattogno, your quoted report thus remained refuted.

The deletion of the posting, by the way, was not only unnecessary but it was fully unjustified, since I did not dodge but explicitly replied to the question...

I already said, that i don´t agree with this.

Hans´s argument is false, these holes above has no magical abilities to stay in this great condition and survive explosion, so there is no need to see demolished original openings only in roof of alleged gas chamber.

You are showing photographs of the ventilation openings of the oven room of crematorium 3, which immediately raises the question why you (or Mattogno) do NOT show the five ventilation openings of the oven room of crematorium 2, the one which we are actually talking about. The answer is apparently that the openings there are covered under rubble or are heavily damaged.

Good example of fallacy logic and contradictions, can you tell how I or someone else can produce photo of something what is according to you under rubble?

You only assume that are demolished, so you don´t know, right?

C14A.I challenge Hans to provide me with evidence that five rectangular openings in former oven room in Krema II are demolished so no rectangular shape is visible.

I also note that some of the ventilation openings of the furnace room of crematorium 3 were in fact partly damaged with large junk missing or broken away at an edge, which already suggests that a reinforced opening could suffer severe damage upon explosion and collapse.

Nobody denied that few of these openings are damaged, but rectangular shape is there. Your argument is false.

We know from the evidence that there were wire mesh devices and solid chimneys at the openings and it is likely that the devices were dismantled prior blowing up the basement and possibly also the chimneys were dismantled at this occasion, either by explosives or by prisoners’ work, both could have resulted in severe damage of the openings.

C14B. I challenge Hans to provide me with evidence that wire-mesh columns and solid chimneys ever existed. Show me how this device was attached, how this device survived mass of peoples inside gas chamber, and how this device was able to remove still outgassing pellets and what they did with these pellets after they removed them. Provide me with evidence from what material cover on the chimney was made of.

What is your evidence for dismantling this things? Why did not they dismantle roof instead of dismantling only devices and chimneys which of course cannot cover the most damning evidence, the holes themselves?

A third cause of damage especially of opening 1 are gold diggers as well as not so well informed people investigating the basement and enlarging the opening to gain access to the underlying cavity.

In the case, that openings were 50cm x 50cm according to you, no need to damage this opening to gain access as an explanation why the shape is demolished, your argument is false.

I already addressed the argument about Kula’s testimony in the posting that was deleted, but which you have read:

“Another note on Mattogno, he has a major obsession with Michal Kula and his dimension of 70 cm. If we believe him, then either Kula is right (or his interpretation of Kula) or there were no openings for introducing the gas, as if nothing would exist in between. But things are not as simple in the real world. It is possible that Kula was (without knowing) describing the dimensions of the device for crematorium 3 and that it was different for crematorium 2. It is also possible that Kula was simply mistaken on the dimension. It is – thirdly – also possible that only the second mesh with 50 * 50 cm went through the roof. None of these possibilities is considered by Mattogno with his all or nothing fallacy. “

Since the material evidence found by Mazal et al. strongly suggests the openings were about 50 x 50 cm, it is clear either Kula was either mistaken on this detail (which is a minor error considering that human memory is imperfect), or he was describing the device for crematorium 3 which may have had larger dimensions, or his description is incomplete and the outer mesh did not went trough the rough. In any case, there is no reason to reject either Kula as evidence for the device or the findings of Mazal et al.

No his (Mattogno) interpretation, I provided you with evidence, that this is interpretation of your own source HH.org and also Pressac´s, and also Kula´s itself from his testimony. This is not Mattogno´s obssesion, Kula is the best one who can know needed details, so is logical that Mattogno use this witness as the most relevant one, your argument is false.

C14C. I challenge Hans to provide me with evidence how many of these device of different measurements Kula manufactured to prove me that he could mistaken them. Provide me with information if Kula ever manufactured more devices with different measurements.

We both propably know that he never spoke about different device.

Can you tell me reason why to implement two different wire-mesh devices design to the identical gas chambers in Krema II-III? Which means that they also implemented different holes for them?

Only inner part could protrude through roof? Again false Hans, this column was allegedly 3m long and ceiling is 2.41m, so no way to claim that only inner part protruded through roof, your argument is again false. You also ignore sketches again which clearly indicate what was mobile part and its measurements.

You also ignore sketches from your own sources which don´t indicate anything like that Kula was mistaken, I see no “warning: these devices are inaccurate, Kula was propably wrong“. It looks like you are inventing your claims without single evidence becuase revisionists arguments are damning for story.

C14D. I challenge Hans to provide me with statement if witnesses had enough time to measure at least one single wire-mesh column to provide us with correct measurements (+ -) Provide me with testimony which support findings of Keren, Mazal, McCarthy, this means columns were 48-50 and holes too, provide me with testimony/ies which support this.

You try to save situation that Kula was wrong about dimensions which is untenable, everything what contradict holocaust story is mistake, sorry Hans, but this is absurd and falsification of your own sources, something totally unbelieveable.

Findings of “ your“ team are refuted even with using your own evidence.

What we have here is a “little“ swindle, the hole was in original even smaller than in 1990 and some “helper“ coarsely enlarged this hole and made it more square with chisel. This hole was 86cm x 50cm and with 0,41m² in 1990, we can see that according to photos this hole was even smaller in 1945.

I challenge you to show that the hole was even smaller in 1945 and specifically that it was significantly below 50 x 50 cm, which is the only situation the opening would collide with Mazal et al.’s thesis. Unless the hole was at any time significantly smaller than 50 x 50 cm, any alteration of the shape or size of the hole in the 90s is of little relevance for the question whether it was a gas introduction opening in 1943 – 1945.

That opening in 1945 is smaller is visible from photo in 1945


and from photo from 1992


You want to deny that these hole are of different size?

50cm hole is false claim, as you can see here from comparison.


No way that hole in 1992 was 50cm, is clearly visible that hole in 1997 is larger and vertical side is longer, you can even see the remainnig rebars which were exposed by removing of concrete. In 1992, this rebar was almost whole covered. The angle is almost the same, no major distortion.

Major alteration of this hole clearly prove, that hole is not introduction hole, because no need to do fraudulent alteration of original hole. Your argument is false.

It is also noteworthy that SKcz – just like Mattogno - entirely ignored that there seems to be a drop of tar at an edge of the opening, which is in fact strong evidence the hole was made at the time the tar was put on the roof. Is there any reason why Revisionists do not want to talk about this?

I did not care of this tar since this is no proof and don´t see why this can prove that this is introduction hole when evidence clearly speak about that this is not introduction hole.

There is clearly a hole in the roof at the place shown as the concrete roof is not intact anymore there. So the only question remains is whether the hole was entirely created by the explosion and collapse of the basement and by post-war dismantling or whether it was a gas introduction opening severely damaged by dismantling work or explosion and collapse of the basement. Neither Mattogno nor SKcz can show that the hole was created by or after the destruction of the basement. Therefore it is indeed a candidate for a gas introduction opening and its approximate location does correspond to expected location of hole number 2 according to the pattern on aerial and ground photographs and the other two located openings.

We are not looking for hole, we are looking for introduction hole and this is not introduction hole since nothing on this photo indicate it, the only thing which indicate it is the dotted area.

Logical fallacy. I or Mattogno, we don´t need to show you what this hole is, you need to prove that this is introduction hole, burden of proof is on you Hans. But we can easily show you what this hole isn´t.

Aside this, there are only a few explanation of what caused hole, only explosion or someone made it, if the introdcution hole theory failed, there are only these two other theories. Your argument is false.

As you can see, according to Hans, Mattogno is the one who failed, he has no problem that his source is not able to provide even one single proof of existence of some hole under rubble on the photo, but Mattogno is the one who should be blamed that hole is not visible, sweet. We can also see that Hans used “if it exists“ which means that he even don´t know if some hole exist and he isn´t sure so he doubt even his own proof of hole.

Do someone see elephant in the photo?

As we can see, this hole even don´t exist so no need to bother for what purpose non-existent hole served.quote

This is blatantly false. We do not see that the hole does not exist.

But we need to see and know that exist! Your argument is false and logical fallacy.

“I do not see murder weapon, but there is murder weapon, we only don´t see it“ Hans, hope you see logical fallacy.

The area, where the opening should be is not accessible, so that neither positive nor negative material evidence for its existence is available. We cannot answer the question with material evidence whether there is an opening or not at the place where it is expected if mass gassing were true. The emphasis is here on “with material evidence”, since we can answer the question by using other evidence: from the overwhelming testimonial evidence for mass gassings in Auschwitz in general (for instance see my blog posting Homicidal gassings at the first Frankfurt Auschwitz trial – A statistical survey) but also in the basement in particular, as well from the photographic evidence and the findings of Mazal et al. on openings number 1, 2 and 4, it is very likely that opening 3 does exist and is covered under rubble.

In other words, you only assume that something is here, but you have no evidence. So no hole Hans.

C14E. I challenge Hans to provide me with evidence that hole number 3 exist in this place, provide me with testimonies, provide me with photographic evidence of this hole. You talked about testimonies and photos, show them to prove hole number 3. Feel free to use it to prove other holes as well.

Skcz also quotes the testimony of Walter Schreiber but ignores that I already pointed out in the deleted posting (which he read), that Schreiber became chief inspector of Huta in Kattowitz AFTER the crematoria were already completed. In other words, there is no reason to believe that his knowledge is anything else than guess work or at best hearsay. Also his age of 90 does not exactly provide much confidence in his memory, which can severely decline at high age. If Schreiber had testified positive on homicidal gas chamber, it is safe to say that Revisionists would attack his testimony exactly for these reasons, but since he testified negative this is not supposed to be a problem?

I did not ignore this, but because your argumentation was false I did not took it into consideration.

C14F.I challenge Hans to provide me with evidence which speaks about making holes during construction, that holes were made during construction as Keren, Mazal and McCarthy claims about, fo example, hole number 4.

C14G. I challenge Hans to provide me with statement if according to him all testimonies which weren´t “eyewitness“ can be dismissed as hearsay and without value.

His memory according to his testimony looks ok. In the case of positive testimony on holes i would attack him with material evidence which would easily refute/confirm his possible claims, but he testified negative in accordance with material evidence, so no problem to accept it.

We can see that there is no rectangular shape of concrete which is explained as “edges were shattered by the explosion“. This again contradict their alleged dimensions 50cm x 50cm, since the hole was allegedly shattered by explosion to explain missing shape and thus could never have been 50cm x 50cm. Original dimension of this hole was of course lower if this “explosion shattering“ is true

The original dimension would not be lower, because the measurement of 50 cm x 50 cm is based on the distance of the rebar lattice work not on the damaged concrete.

Do you want to tell me, that these rebars remained straight and intact after explosion, that concrete flew away and rebars remained straight?

Where are these straight magic rebars from other holes?

We can also see bent rebars which should have to be removed in the case that this really served as introduction hole.

Why would anybody want remove the steel bars at an opening which is already a weak spot anyway? In contrary, one would instead of removing rather put additional steel bars for reinforcement and cut and hook the bar going through the opening. There is no evidence for additional steel bars at Mazal et al. holes, which was not considered necessary apparently to sustain structural stability, however there is clear evidence of cutting and hooking for openings 2 and 4, which is exactly how it would have been done if they were created during the construction of the basement (see here)

Bent rebars need to be removed to build chimneys above holes and to introduce column to hole and make all gas-tight. Straight rebars need to be removed not to protrude to hole which prevent installation of column. Bent rebars must be cut off to build chimney above hole.

As you can clearly see here


When you straighten these bent rebars, they clearly protrude to your alleged hole, some holocaustian forgot to cut off these rebars which are clearly longer and protrude to this hole! Do you see it? When you straighten them they protrude to hole! What is more absurd, even the bent rebars protrude to hole! Some of them are bent out of the hole, some in to the hole. Is impossible that explosion from inside the chamber can bent rebars inside to the hole, so this was clearly made by some man.

Who bent this rebar into the hole? Germans? So in this case adress challenge below how was this possible.

C14H. I challenge Hans to provide me with explanation how was possible use this hole as introducttion hole for Zyklon B when remaining bent rebars are clearly longer and protrude to hole number 4 which means, that was not possible to install wire-mesh column or to build chinmney above hole and made this hole gas-tight

I await your explanation of my points.

1-Hole 1 was heavily altered to make this hole believeable as alleged introduction hole which prove more than enough that we are dealing with total swindle.

Logical fallacy. One cannot conclude from alterations of the hole (in the 90s) that the hole did not exist in the roof in 1943 – 1945. For instance, a possible scenario without “total swindle” is that the opening existed in 1943, was heavily damaged upon dismantling and then altered in the 90s by somebody who genuinely belives in homicidal gassings in the basement. If you like it or not, alterations in the 90s do not prove nor implicate that the hole was no gas introduction opening.

No, alteration prove that something is very rotten with this hole. No need to alter already existing genuine hole to make it looks like an introduction hole. Why to alter introduction hole to make it look like introduction hole?

Alteration prove, that this hole was never 50cm as is visible from comparison photos, this hole is hardly 50cm even after this fraud.

Logical fallacy is to say that this hole ever existed for introduction without proving it, your arguments were refuted.

2-According to Hans and his source, the witnesses were again confused, they also ignore important witness and sources which spoke about 70cm x 70cm wire columns which protruded through the ceiling which means that holes must be larger than 70cm x 70cm

3-According to Hans, the main witness who made these columns was confused too and he was mistaken about correct measurements. This didn´t help to Hans.

Apart from the fact that it is unclear how a minor mistake in Kula’s testimony would not help to bring his testimony in accordance with Mazal et al.’s findings, this is an incomplete summary of my arguments. I offered in fact two more explanations.

According to Hans, 70cm instead of 48cm (Hans´s source) and 3m instead of 2,41 is minor mistake. You want to tell me that he was not provided with correct measurements from SS and requirements for this device so he didn´t know how wide and how long this device must be and he simply manufactured it without any requirements from SS?

The holes existed first before devices, or they made holes after Kula manufactured “some“ columns so this whole operation depended on Kula´s devices and SS didn´t care how long or how wide or how they will operate this device?

I really await your explanation.

Your other explanations were refuted above.

5-Hole 3 don´t exist since nobody was able to locate it and show it.

From the finding that the assumed location of the opening is covered under rubble, it cannot be concluded that it does not exist.

Good, but you must prove that this hole exist Hans and not want proof from us that they don´t exist. Please, be more friendly with logic. This hole simply don´t exist and you don´t know anything about it, you only assume without evidence.

10-Pelt refuted his own theory about sealing of these holes as an explanation why they couldn´t be observed, when he accepted report from Keren, McCarthy and Mazal in his Case for Auschwitz and during Lipstadt trial.

I fail to see the point you are trying to make. It is proper methodology and scientific to reject a thesis as soon as new evidence comes to light. Van Pelt was on the wrong track when he put forward the thesis that the openings may have been sealed, he did however also not study the basement as carefully and detailed as Mazal et al. did.

Point is that Pelt was all the time wrong as revisionists said. Another point is that Pelt and the others cannot move back from this report which is proven as false. When proven as false, you have no chance to start another false theory.

11-Hans and his source was not able to locate traces of alleged concrete chimneys which covered every introduction hole, they did not bother to locate them because there are no traces.

Since the chimneys (visible on the February 1943 ground photograph) cannot be identified today, it is likely they have been dismantled, and the severe destruction of the openings does not allow identifying their traces at the roof.

Point 12 is a repetition of point 2 and 3.

Good inspiration for another challenge.

C14I. I challenge Hans to provide me with photo from February 1943 (little train photo) which prove, that roof of gas chamber ever contained alleged chimneys which match with Hans´s evidence from Keren, Mazal, McCarthy. Bricks were 12cm according to Mattogno and standard bricks used by Germans, this means that all of alleged chimneys in your photo must be at least 24 + 50 = 74cm wide. Show me this evidence in your photo.

Conclusion:

The alleged introduction holes for Zyklon B, which contained alleged wire-mesh introduction columns were not located. There is not even single proof that these holes ever existed as proved by revisionists. These alleged holes were made when the investigation groups needed to get acces to alleged gas chamber, or they were caused by supporting pillars when the roof was dynamited and when the roof fell on the pillars. Some of these holes were heavily altered to support lies.

Actually none of the statements in your conclusion is factually correct.

Three out of four gas introduction openings have been most likely been located and Revisionists have not provide considerable evidence and reason to challenge these findings. The drop of tar at an edge of hole number 1 as well as properly cut and hooked rebar as usually done with openings in reinforced concrete is evidence that the openings were created during the construction of the basement. There is no convincing evidence that the holes were made by the “investigations groups” or were caused (and not simply enlarged and damaged) by crushing of supporting pillars. There exists evidence for one hole being altered in the 90s (while the hole clearly existed already in 1945, so it cannot be argued that there is evidence the hole was created after the war), but not for “some of these holes”.

Actually none of your arguments remained alive, all were refuted. Hole 1 existed according to photo from 1945, this don´t mean that this hole existed before, but only prove that existed in 1945 becaue as we know, Auschwitz was captured in January 1945, this hole could be easily made after this date or during explosion.

C14J.I challenge Hans to provide me with evidence which hole served as entryway to chamber during investigations. According to Hans´s source, all holes were 50cm x 50 cm, solarge enough, this means that not even one single hole was ever created to enter interior of chamber since this 50cm holes are large enough?

I see that you failed to show that the opening was much less than 50 x 50 cm in 1945, which means that Mazal et al.'s finding that it is a gas introduction opening with 50 x 50 cm is not challenged or shown to be false.

The rest of your posting is just a repetition of what you already said and most importantly, what I already thoroughly addressed in my previous postings.

Not so fast Hans, when I posted my response to Toshiro, I didn´t see your comment, calm down and let me enough time to write whole response next time. I gave you whole week for your response which I adressed now.

Please, adress all of my points and challenges, when adressing challenge, please quote it completely together with number, thanks.

No dodging, be straight in your answers on my challenges and my points to make discussuion easier to read, thanks in advance.