Why I do not know. There are no human remains that can be shown. Rather odd for an 'extermination center' where massive numbers of corpses were supposedly buried.
See much more information and additional images that follow these, further giving the game away .
The alleged 'holes' for dumping in the alleged 'extermination' agent, an insect repellent Zyklon-B, have obviously been crudely penciled in. They do not even look like 'holes'.
They are claimed to represent small square protusions projecting upward from the crematorium roofs, 'little chimney' shaped, but instead we see penciled in irregular blotchy lines.
Apparently The Rabbit thinks that because the 'holes' appear in different photos on two different dates means the added on 'holes' are indeed Zyklon-B 'little chimneys'.
Following is Krema 2 & 3 in 8 pictures from just two sorties over Birkenau.
23.08.44 - Appear in 3 photos, but the pictures from only 1 camera are available to view online
25.08.44 - Appear in 5 photos, photos from 2 cameras available online
From the A/B photos we see below an embarrassing attempt to draw in 'Jews being marched to the gas chambers'.
Problem is the forger has drawn in 'Jews' marching on top of a roof.
Also, this laughable 'Jews marching on a roof to the gas chambers' forgery appears on a second photo at a 'different time'. Oops!
And there's this analysis of other altered / faked photos taken from:
'Critique of Claims Made by Robert Jan Van Pelt'
by Germar Rudolf
Photos allegedly showing Zyklon B introduction vents / 'holes'
Prof. van Pelt writes [p. 295]:
These columns were connected to small holes that penetrated the concrete ceiling of the gas chamber, which opened to four small "chimneys" for lack of a better word. These are visible on one of the photos of crematorium 2 taken by the SS during construction, the aerial photos taken by the Americans in 1944 […]
Is Prof. van Pelt an expert for analyzing photos? If he is, than I might add the following conclusions of analyses of the photos van Pelt refers to:
1. Analysis of a section of an air photo of the Birkenau camp taken by a Canadian airplane August 1944.
* The alignment of the patches referred to by Prof. van Pelt s "chimneys" does not agree with the direction of the shadow cast by the crematorium chimney!
* On a photo from September 13, 1944, the patches on crematorium III retain their direction and shape even though the position of the sun has changed!
* On that same photo the patches on morgue 1 of crematorium II are missing!
* The length of the patches would corresponds to objects 4.5 ft. wide and rising 10 to 13 ft. above the roof – in other words, large objects, not the approximately 20-inch-high hatches attested to by witnesses.
* These jagged, irregular patches cannot be shadows cast by perpendicular, straight input hatches.
Schematic drawing of air photo in Ill. 1. One can easily see that the patches on the Morgues I cannot be input hatches: too large, irregular, alignment incorrect for shadows.
The underside of the crematorium said to have had 'little chimneys / holes' leading into the 'gas chambers'.
Problem, no evidence whatsoever of holes ever being there.
photo 1 below: top of roof of crematorium no. 2
Taken January/February 1943 where there are no such 'little chimneys' or 'holes'. Note that the little chimneys are claimed to have been ca. 2 feet high. The snow is ca. 2-3 inches in depth.
According to Auschwitz "expert" Robert Jan Van Pelt (who appeared at the Irving/Lipstadt trial), the insertion columns (little chimneys), which were said to protrude out from the roof, were added as an adaptation in August, 1942.
This is too easy.
"Alone the fact that one may not question the Jewish "holocaust" and that Jewish pressure has inflicted laws on democratic sociees to prevent questions—while incessant promotion and indoctrination of the same averredly incontestable ‘holocaust’ occur—gives the game away. It proves that it must be a lie. Why else would one not be allowed to question it? Because it might offend the "survivors"? Because it "dishonors the dead"? Hardly sufficient reason to outlaw discussion. No, because the exposure of this leading lie might precipitate questions about so many other lies and cause the whole ramshackle fabrication to crumble."
- Gerard Menuhin / Revisionist Jew, son of famous violinist