Pon's Auschwitz Aerial photographs

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1398
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Pon's Auschwitz Aerial photographs

Postby Lamprecht » 3 months 3 weeks ago (Mon Sep 30, 2019 9:01 pm)

[EDIT: This reply chain has been split off from the following thread, started by Pon:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12751#p94034

Let's try to stick to one major issue per thread, as best we can at least.

Webmaster]


Pon:
Airial photo:
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/js ... 082544.jpg
(the photo has been shown to be genuine)

If it is so genuine, then why are Jews marching on a roof in the bottom left?

Bigger image:
Image

The next images are from:
Air Photo Evidence - By John Clive Ball
https://codoh.com/library/document/919/

Image
Illustration 6 : Detail enlargement of RG 373 Can F 5367, exp. 3185, Aug. 25, 1944, crematoria II and III.

Image
Illustration 7: Schematic drawing of the above air photo. One can easily see that the patches on the mortuaries 1 cannot be input hatches: too large, irregular, alignment incorrect for shadows.

Image
Illustration 8: Schematic drawing of the position and size of the patches (3) on the roof of mortuary 1 (the ‘gas chamber’, 1) of crematorium II and the location (2) of the only two holes to be found.

Image
Illustration 9: Drawn in groups of alleged prisoners, walking over the roof of a barrack. Notice their dark color.



Pon:
Finally, I'd like to finish with a report on the holes of the roof of the gas-chamber: https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... oles.shtml

Please make a new thread after reading these debunkings of that article, and tell us what you think:

The Elusive Holes of Death
https://codoh.com/library/document/1747/

The Openings for the Introduction of Zyklon B
Part 1: https://codoh.com/library/document/1751/
Part 2: https://codoh.com/library/document/1752/
"There is a principal which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principal is contempt prior to investigation."
-- Herbert Spencer

Pon
Member
Member
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 10:09 am

Re: The Official Explanation of the Preussian Blue Bleeding Through the Brick Work

Postby Pon » 3 months 3 weeks ago (Tue Oct 01, 2019 3:40 pm)

I'll respond to this last post first (and I guess work my way up), I would have to do this as my day-job if I had to answer everything each time.

Regarding the aerial photo; I think these have been edited in afterwards (just like the text) obviously the original doesn't have these marks, other photos have dark spots as well, possibly some general marking the location of something with a pen (just speculation though), we obviously don't know for a fact if the dots on the alleged gas chamber should be seen as the actual chimneys, they are features on the photo which do coincide with witness testimony and the photo where the train is in the foreground. It could be that the dark spots on the roof are ground disturbance of the guards frequently being in the area of the chimneys, remember that the roof was covered with dirt (which grows grass), disturbances could account for the darker area around the chimneys. I also think that the resolution is to low to account for the chimneys being shown themselves, instead they should probably (my opinion) be regarded as tell-tale signs of them.

About the prisoners walking on top of the roof (not all were jews), probably markings with a pen, the originals doesn't have the feature, it was the originals that were examined by the air force in order to validate them as genuine. I would really like to see the originals but I haven't seen them available anywhere.

Another photo, less resolution though, but no "prisoners walking on the roof" can be found:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/Birkenau_Extermination_Camp_-_NARA_-_305987.jpg (a bit lower than the middle of the image to the far left).


https://www.hdot.org/vanpelt/# Search for aerial in the document, I think it is the second result (it is a rather lengthy document).
The original CIA analysis was based on study of analog enlargements. With new digital technologies it has become possible, however, to revisit the issue of the evidentiary value of the photos. In April 1996 I visited Los Angeles to meet with Michael Shermer, the editor of Skeptic magazine, and Alex Grobman, the director of the Martyrs Memorial and Holocaust Museum. Together we went to NASA’s Jet propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena to meet with Dr. Nevin Bryant, Supervisor of Cartographic Applications and Image Processing Applications. One of the world leaders in the analysis of aeaial and satellite images, Dr. Bryant agreed to analyze with his computers the photos, enhancing the date using software programs used by NASA. The most important results were that the four shaded markings on the roofs of morgue 1 of both crematorium 2 and 3 did belong to the original negative, and were not added later on.





About the article I linked regarding the holes:
The links you gave seem pre-occupied with debunking the holes themselves, not debunking the article I gave. They said that the holes were a after-construction (did they mean the holes in the rubble?), as is explained in the article, the holes couldn't have been an after-construction as there were bars bent into the concrete, which means they were bent when the concrete was filled. As far as I am concerned you have thus dodged the question simply by trying to resolve a different one. Science evolves, old arguments become obsolete.

I might start a different thread debating that particular issue, but let's stick to this one first.

User avatar
Webmaster
Administration
Administration
Posts: 410
Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2002 10:58 pm
Contact:

Pon's Auschwitz Aerial photographs

Postby Webmaster » 3 months 3 weeks ago (Tue Oct 01, 2019 4:21 pm)

The following posts have been separated from a previous thread about cyanide residue in Auschwitz wall samples

Original thread: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12751

Let's try to keep one topic per thread the best we can

Webmaster

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1398
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: Pon's Auschwitz Aerial photographs

Postby Lamprecht » 3 months 3 weeks ago (Tue Oct 01, 2019 5:14 pm)

Pon wrote:Regarding the aerial photo; I think these have been edited in afterwards (just like the text) obviously the original doesn't have these marks,

Why would there be edits to the photo that supposedly prove that people were being gassed here?

Pon wrote:they are features on the photo which do coincide with witness testimony and the photo where the train is in the foreground.

I don't see the issue? Your proof of homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz are just a few extremely tiny dark marks on a photograph?

Which "Witness testimony"? Please create a thread on any testimony you think supports your Auschwitz homicidal gassings story.

Pon wrote:Another photo, less resolution though, but no "prisoners walking on the roof" can be found:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... 305987.jpg (a bit lower than the middle of the image to the far left).

I believe this photo is from May 31, 1944

What do you think it proves, Pon? That Auschwitz was real? That people walked around the camp for various reasons? Nobody questions this.


Pon wrote:https://www.hdot.org/vanpelt/# Search for aerial in the document, I think it is the second result (it is a rather lengthy document).
The original CIA analysis was based on study of analog enlargements. With new digital technologies it has become possible, however, to revisit the issue of the evidentiary value of the photos. In April 1996 I visited Los Angeles to meet with Michael Shermer, the editor of Skeptic magazine, and Alex Grobman, the director of the Martyrs Memorial and Holocaust Museum. Together we went to NASA’s Jet propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena to meet with Dr. Nevin Bryant, Supervisor of Cartographic Applications and Image Processing Applications. One of the world leaders in the analysis of aeaial and satellite images, Dr. Bryant agreed to analyze with his computers the photos, enhancing the date using software programs used by NASA. The most important results were that the four shaded markings on the roofs of morgue 1 of both crematorium 2 and 3 did belong to the original negative, and were not added later on.

Where is this analysis with "software programs used by NASA" exactly?
Curious how we never get to see any actual proof when it is claimed "The experts did something fancy with high-tech machines/softwar, and proved it. Just believe us!" :roll:

Mattogno writes:
Let us now look at the photograph from 1945 published by Pressac. The three quadrangular dark spots (designated 1, 2 and 3 in document 6) are aligned parallel to the two brick aeration chimneys, of which the first one (the one closest to the camera) is located on top of the morgue. Furthermore, the first dark spot appears to the right of the first chimney (2 in Doc. 3-5), whereas in the reconstruction by the Auschwitz Museum the alleged opening for the introduction of Zyklon B closest to this ventilation chimney (cf. docs. 3-6) is to its left. If these dark spots were the traces of the alleged Zyklon B introduction openings and if, as the witness Żłobnicki tells us, the present openings were constructed at the same locations where traces of the original openings appeared, why was no opening made at the point where dark spot no. 1 can be seen? Inversely, the Auschwitz Museum had an opening done (point “C” in documents 3-5) at a point where the photograph in question shows no dark spot.

Image
Document 6: The roof of crematorium I, photo taken by Stanisław Luczko (probably in May 1945).[21] 1,2,3,4: dark spots of rectangular shape on the roof felt. The arrow links the left-hand sides of spots no. 1 and 4.
...
7. There is no proof that the four rectangular dark spots visible on the roof of crematorium I in the photograph published by Pressac are traces of former openings that were later sealed; on the contrary, no trace on the ceiling of the morgue corresponds to dark spot 1.

8. The remaining traces of closed openings are circular and are no doubt connected to the transformation of the crematorium into an air-raid shelter.

The Openings for the Introduction of Zyklon B, Part 1
https://codoh.com/library/document/1751/


Pon wrote:About the article I linked regarding the holes:
The links you gave seem pre-occupied with debunking the holes themselves, not debunking the article I gave. They said that the holes were a after-construction (did they mean the holes in the rubble?), as is explained in the article, the holes couldn't have been an after-construction as there were bars bent into the concrete, which means they were bent when the concrete was filled. As far as I am concerned you have thus dodged the question simply by trying to resolve a different one. Science evolves, old arguments become obsolete.


Well you have simply posted a link, and ignored everything in the links I posted that responded to them. You can't expect to just post a bunch of links and say "debunk everything in them or you're dodging". Anyone can play this game. It is called "Gish Gallop".
The fact of the matter is that the link had absolutely nothing to do with prussian blue, iron cyanide, or cyanide residue in the walls. Which was what the thread you started was actually about, so the "Dodging" claim is irrelevant. I could also post a link to 10 books and say "refute all of this or you're dodging" but that wouldn't be very fair, would it?

Anyway, you are probably referring to hole #4 which, in fact, was addressed in [at least one of] the links I provided. To wit:
Image
Document 7: The alleged opening #4 for Zyklon B.[43]

Image
Document 7a: as doc. 7, the pillar and the bent rebars marked.

Image
Document 8: Morgue 1 of crematorium II at Birkenau. Concrete pillar protruding from concrete roof slab and the crack produced by the pillar. August 2000. © Carlo Mattogno.

...

6.4. Opening #4

The identification of opening 4 is decidedly more fanciful. The authors explain:

“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 x 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.” (pp. 75f.)

Let us examine the photograph of this alleged Zyklon B opening (see documents 7 and 7a). The first thing that strikes the eye is the supporting pillar for the morgue ceiling, which protrudes from this hole; the vertical traces of the planking used in the construction of this pillar are clearly visible, as are the ends of the steel rods sticking out of its top. The crack is clearly the result of the ceiling crashing onto this pillar. In fact, as the authors concede, “the roof shifted considerably when it collapsed after the explosions,” which means that the ceiling rose and then fell back with its central beam out of line with the row of pillars, some of which pierced the ceiling. This is borne out by the fact that next to the alleged opening 1 one can see the top of the first concrete pillar, which has pierced the roof of the morgue creating an opening of its own (see document 8 ).

Secondly, this crack does not have proper sides, to say nothing of smooth edges, which would not have disappeared altogether as demonstrated by the vents of the furnace hall of crematorium III or the ventilation hole of morgue 2 in crematorium II.

Thirdly, in the square formed by the rebars, to which the authors attribute so much importance, the lateral bars have not been cut as would have been necessary to erect the brick chimneys around the opening, but only bent: in document 7a, I have numbered 1-5 those that can be seen best, with “P” standing for the pillar.

The claim of the authors that this square of rebars is a direct proof that it was created in 1943 is frankly ridiculous. Over the years, the ruins of morgue 1 of crematorium II have undergone work and manipulations on several occasions. I will limit myself to the best documented ones. First of all, as early as 1946 the ruins of morgue 1 were the object of soundings and diggings undertaken by the expert Roman Dawidowski who worked under the orders of judge Jan Sehn.[52]

In 1968, a group of Germans did precise archeological research and diggings at this site. Pressac has published four photographs thereof.[53]

Furthermore, between 1990 and 2000 the alleged opening 1 – as I have already stated – was enlarged and squared. Provan’s opening #7 has undergone similar manipulations: in 1990, it presented five rebars up to 40 cm long bent backwards; in 2000, the opening had been roughly squared and four of those rebars had been cut.[54]

How is it possible, then, to claim seriously that, in 1998, the status of the rebars in the alleged opening 4 reflects the original conditions? And how can one take such stupidity to be a “proof”? The authors just did not know what to base themselves on to “demonstrate” the existence of the fourth alleged Zyklon B opening!

Not looking very conclusive, Pon.

I might start a different thread debating that particular issue, but let's stick to this one first.

You are welcome to make a thread on a specific hole in a roof, or the holes in general :)
Last edited by Lamprecht on Tue Oct 01, 2019 6:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"There is a principal which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principal is contempt prior to investigation."
-- Herbert Spencer

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1398
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: Pon's Auschwitz Aerial photographs

Postby Lamprecht » 3 months 3 weeks ago (Tue Oct 01, 2019 6:30 pm)

According to Pon's favorite source, Pressac's book on Auschwitz (debunked in general here: viewtopic.php?p=94037#p94037 ) the laughable Kula column (debunked here: viewtopic.php?t=10949 ) is 3 meters (9.8 foot) high, and 70 x 70 cm (2.3 x 2.3 foot) wide:

https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... 0487.shtml

Image

Which would necessarily mean, that the alleged device would be coming out of the ceiling, as the height of the room was only 2.4 meters (7.9 foot). This is shown in the following image, from the same website using Pressac's book as a source: https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... o-columns/

Image

Yet the holes in question are not even large enough to accommodate this. From your own source (quoted at the end of my first post here in this thread):
Hole 1 is the opening in the roof near Pillar 1 (Figure 11a) ... We estimate its size at approximately 0.5 m square...

Hole 2 is an opening (Figure 12) that lies in an area of the roof more thoroughly destroyed by the explosion... Its size is again estimated at 0.5 x 0.5 m...

[Hole 3 has no measurement provided]

Hole 4 can be identified by the unimpeded square opening set in the rebar in 1943... Its measurements are 0.5 x 0.5 m.

Ergo, from your own source, for the 3 out of 4 holes [the other one doesn't have measurements provided], none of them are large enough for the alleged Kula column. It just wouldn't fit.

Not looking good, Pon :?
"There is a principal which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principal is contempt prior to investigation."
-- Herbert Spencer

Pon
Member
Member
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 10:09 am

Re: Pon's Auschwitz Aerial photographs

Postby Pon » 3 months 3 weeks ago (Wed Oct 02, 2019 8:17 pm)

Webmaster:
Thank you for seperating the thread, it wasn't my intention for my question to inflate into a big debate otherwise I might have chosen a different name for the thread (even this thread-title may prove to be too specific, but I guess I'll start a different thread if something else comes up that doesn't deal with the aerial photos of the holes). In my defence, I was asked to step-by-step describe the gassing process and and later to provide evidence, it made little sense at that time to do it in a different thread, even if that would have been better.


Lamprecht:
I agree that posting links to large articles (and indeed books) should be avoided without a direct citation pointing out the area of interest, especially if the article doesn't only deal with the subject in question but other things as well. The article I posted all dealt with the same thing though, the holes of the specific roof of Crematorium II gas chamber, and it wasn't a very large article either. To be specific it claims to have found all four holes in the rubble left, (there is a fifth hole that was made by some amateur or someone with the bars sticking through that is disregarded of course),

https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/pressac/technique-and-operation/pressac0482.shtmlHenryk Tauber was the witness describing the wiremesh columns to be two on either side of the pillars (four in total) which is supported by the aerial photo. Pressac thinks he must have been mistaken because he was of the impression that the wiremesh columns were along a straight line. Also, I've linked to a different witness that through a drawing describes the four chimneys as being in a zig-zag pattern on the roof (this, as it was drawn previous to the publication of the air photos), this link (photo 22): https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/pressac/technique-and-operation/pressac0344.shtml

Why would there be edits to the photo that supposedly prove that people were being gassed here?
After searching for more on the image I'm not convinced that they were edited (aside for the annotations), the image which has been compiled of three consecutive images and combined to show a timelapse clearly shows how when the people gather in a crowd they do seem to take on this opaque characteristic. If they were deliberately edited that way then it would be a great job and a VERY sloppy one at the same time. The illusion that they are standing ontop of the roof might actually give the image credibility as it is masterfully made in all other regards except for the blobs of masses giving the impression that they are standing on the rooftop. I also seem to notice slight movement in the crowd.

Link to the GIF image: https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-5tclMNKr6gA/WUylLcv0wzI/AAAAAAAABjY/TX1wPt_udH0x5TOb9DUCRPlOCzgPDoYxgCLcBGAs/s1600/8_25Aug44_standingformation.gif

Taken from this site: http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2015/06/personal-movement-in-auschwitz-birkenau.html

I found a thread on this forum with links to photographs that are lighter (less underexposed I guess) and the masses of people in those photographs aren't shown to be on the roof, my guess is that black mass in the vicinity of the roof made the black mass bleed unto the roof (someone good in photography might explain that better). Either way, I think these photo's prove that the crowd was standing near the building, not on the roof, and as such is a genuine image.

Unfortunately the chimneys (or indications of chimneys) aren't as clearly visible here due to the overall lighter details, you can still make them out though.
https://forum.codoh.com/download/file.php?id=1381&mode=view

Thread: aerial / ground photos debunk Oskar Groening Auschwitz fraud

Curiously enough it was this forum that convinced me that those blobs were actually real, I had thought for quite a while that they were actually edits to the photographs. Maybe there is a point to be made there, whether you doubt and try to disprove, or believe and try to prove, the truth comes out eventually anyway. Maybe this can still be challenged but, honestly, seeing the roof clearly pass the masses of the brighter photo just took the doubt away from me (and as I said, I actually believed that the blobs were fake). I guess you could still believe the blobs are fake but I believe it would only be to discredit the other features of the picture (which are actually important in the argument, namely the chimneys), why would it otherwise be controversial that there were masses of people being there?



I believe this photo is from May 31, 1944

What do you think it proves, Pon? That Auschwitz was real? That people walked around the camp for various reasons? Nobody questions this.
The point is mainly that the four patches can still be seen on the roof of the alleged gas chambers (that is the point of interest, about half down the image to the left). There are still some weird dark places, but this time not attributed to prisoners. From looking at other photos I think that the dark blobs in that image is actually trees.

Where is this analysis with "software programs used by NASA" exactly?
Curious how we never get to see any actual proof when it is claimed "The experts did something fancy with high-tech machines/softwar, and proved it. Just believe us!" :roll:
I will have to get back to that, I am myself curious to see any document actually showing the analysis or anything like that, I won't have time to search for it now though, it's taken far too long just to find information about the aerial photos I wrote about earlier.

Well you have simply posted a link, and ignored everything in the links I posted that responded to them. You can't expect to just post a bunch of links and say "debunk everything in them or you're dodging". Anyone can play this game. It is called "Gish Gallop".
The fact of the matter is that the link had absolutely nothing to do with prussian blue, iron cyanide, or cyanide residue in the walls. Which was what the thread you started was actually about, so the "Dodging" claim is irrelevant. I could also post a link to 10 books and say "refute all of this or you're dodging" but that wouldn't be very fair, would it?

Anyway, you are probably referring to hole #4 which, in fact, was addressed in [at least one of] the links I provided. To wit:
The links you gave (if I'm not mistaken) didn't deal with the holes in the rubble, but dealt with holes of other alleged gas chambers, to which I would have to do some research to respond to, the particular interest was the holes in the rubble which the link to the report I gave claims to have found.

et us examine the photograph of this alleged Zyklon B opening (see documents 7 and 7a). The first thing that strikes the eye is the supporting pillar for the morgue ceiling, which protrudes from this hole; the vertical traces of the planking used in the construction of this pillar are clearly visible, as are the ends of the steel rods sticking out of its top. The crack is clearly the result of the ceiling crashing onto this pillar. In fact, as the authors concede, “the roof shifted considerably when it collapsed after the explosions,” which means that the ceiling rose and then fell back with its central beam out of line with the row of pillars, some of which pierced the ceiling. This is borne out by the fact that next to the alleged opening 1 one can see the top of the first concrete pillar, which has pierced the roof of the morgue creating an opening of its own (see document 8 ).
The hole could have been made by the roof smashing into the pillar, but that doesn't explain the bent rebar going back into the concrete. Indeed one of the pillars pierced the ceiling completely, that it can happen doesn't mean that it did happen in this specific hole and that it just happened to be exactly where the bent rebar was.

Secondly, this crack does not have proper sides, to say nothing of smooth edges, which would not have disappeared altogether as demonstrated by the vents of the furnace hall of crematorium III or the ventilation hole of morgue 2 in crematorium II.
They could have dissapeared in the explosion and the dynamics thereof, how could anyone be sure that they wouldn't have dissapeared? The concrete probably extended to cover more of the rebars, making the hole slightly less than 50 square cm.

Thirdly, in the square formed by the rebars, to which the authors attribute so much importance, the lateral bars have not been cut as would have been necessary to erect the brick chimneys around the opening, but only bent: in document 7a, I have numbered 1-5 those that can be seen best, with “P” standing for the pillar.
I don't think I understand this argument, why couldn't the brick chimneys (if they were brick chimneys, I'm not sure of that) be erected around the holes if the bars haven't been cut? The bars were within the concrete so I just don't see how that interfers with the structure around them (or have I misunderstood something?).

You are welcome to make a thread on a specific hole in a roof, or the holes in general :)
Perhaps, I don't really know that much about the other alledged gas chambers, but I'm interested in learning more about them. In due time though, it's quite enough work just sorting out one of the chambers.


Ergo, from your own source, for the 3 out of 4 holes [the other one doesn't have measurements provided], none of them are large enough for the alleged Kula column. It just wouldn't fit.

Not looking good, Pon :?
The columns are indeed reported to have gone through the roof, the witness accounts are of course estimates and varies:

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2012/05/review-of-discussion-on-gas-openings-at.html
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, 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 the explanations is actually true is hard to say for now without additional evidence.


What looks good is generally in the eye of the beholder, I don't think the size as estimated by the witnesses are enough to debunk it, it is also very easy for things to get exaggerated in memory in face of the gravity of the situation they were used for. The difference in size from the proposed holes on the roof and the columns aren't ludicrous (imho)

That'll have to do for now :)

Marley775
Member
Member
Posts: 74
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 5:50 pm

Re: Pon's Auschwitz Aerial photographs

Postby Marley775 » 3 months 3 weeks ago (Wed Oct 02, 2019 9:38 pm)

Pon wrote:

The most important results were that the four shaded markings on the roofs of morgue 1 of both crematorium 2...


According to the narrative, two alleged holes were present on each side of the central beam of morgue 1. However, Germar Rudolf pointed out that air photos show the four dark spots all on the same side of the central beam for the Morgue 1 of Krema II

https://imgur.com/c9b84vi

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1398
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: Pon's Auschwitz Aerial photographs

Postby Lamprecht » 3 months 3 weeks ago (Wed Oct 02, 2019 9:45 pm)

Pon wrote:To be specific it claims to have found all four holes in the rubble left, (there is a fifth hole that was made by some amateur or someone with the bars sticking through that is disregarded of course),

There are four holes today, with no actual proof that they were there the entire time. And also, there is some evidence that they have been altered post-war. Additionally, the alleged 'Kula column' could not fit in them. And the bars protruding inside of the holes show that they were unsuitable for use for Zyklon-B induction. Why would they use such primitive holes? You said certan rebars "were bent when the concrete was filled" on just one of the holes. But if these holes were planned, deliberately for the purpose of being Zyklon-B induction holes to exterminate hundreds of thousands of Jews, why wouldn't they be cleaner? They look like someone took a sledge hammer and just broke holes into them. Perhaps in one case, with some rebar, one was already bent. It's not unlikely.

And there is also no actual visual evidence that there was any sort of mesh column attached/fastened to these walls/holes. They just appear to be broken through. There is nothing for anything to attach to.

https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/pressac/technique-and-operation/pressac0482.shtml
Henryk Tauber was the witness describing the wiremesh columns to be two on either side of the pillars (four in total) which is supported by the aerial photo. Pressac thinks he must have been mistaken because he was of the impression that the wiremesh columns were along a straight line

Tauber is simply unreliable. He claimed corpses burned on their own just from the fat. He also said 5 to 8 people could be incinerated in one oven muffle. Along with many other absurdities:

Acclaimed 'eyewitness' Henryk Tauber / stranger than fiction
viewtopic.php?t=17

Acclaimed "eyewitness" Henryk Tauber redux
viewtopic.php?t=8370

Also, I've linked to a different witness that through a drawing describes the four chimneys as being in a zig-zag pattern on the roof (this, as it was drawn previous to the publication of the air photos), this link (photo 22): https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... 0344.shtml

Those holes do not even correspond to the others you are referencing.


After searching for more on the image I'm not convinced that they were edited (aside for the annotations), the image which has been compiled of three consecutive images and combined to show a timelapse clearly shows how when the people gather in a crowd they do seem to take on this opaque characteristic. If they were deliberately edited that way then it would be a great job and a VERY sloppy one at the same time. The illusion that they are standing ontop of the roof might actually give the image credibility as it is masterfully made in all other regards except for the blobs of masses giving the impression that they are standing on the rooftop. I also seem to notice slight movement in the crowd.

Link to the GIF image: https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-5tclMNKr6gA/ ... mation.gif

Taken from this site: http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... kenau.html


I found a thread on this forum with links to photographs that are lighter (less underexposed I guess) and the masses of people in those photographs aren't shown to be on the roof, my guess is that black mass in the vicinity of the roof made the black mass bleed unto the roof (someone good in photography might explain that better). Either way, I think these photo's prove that the crowd was standing near the building, not on the roof, and as such is a genuine image.

Unfortunately the chimneys (or indications of chimneys) aren't as clearly visible here due to the overall lighter details, you can still make them out though.

download/file.php?id=1381&mode=view

It's too small to see for sure. But it is quite obvious here that the alleged holes in the aerial photo posted in the OP, which had a higher resolution, do not correspond to the holes in this image: https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... 0344.shtml

And also do not correspond to the 50 x 50cm holes mentioned in the other study you have cited.

The point is mainly that the four patches can still be seen on the roof of the alleged gas chambers (that is the point of interest, about half down the image to the left). There are still some weird dark places, but this time not attributed to prisoners. From looking at other photos I think that the dark blobs in that image is actually trees.


"The patches" do not even correspond to the holes in the drawing you posted, or the holes in the 50x50 cm holes in the study you have linked. Also they can not be seen in that image, which is quite tiny.

And perhaps they are trees then. Either way, the alleged holes do not seem to support the silly gassing story.

I will have to get back to that, I am myself curious to see any document actually showing the analysis or anything like that, I won't have time to search for it now though, it's taken far too long just to find information about the aerial photos I wrote about earlier.

Go ahead, but others have tried to contact Bryant about it and he wants nothing to do with it :lol:

The links you gave (if I'm not mistaken) didn't deal with the holes in the rubble, but dealt with holes of other alleged gas chambers, to which I would have to do some research to respond to, the particular interest was the holes in the rubble which the link to the report I gave claims to have found.

That is incorrect, they specifically address the holes in the report that you have posted. In fact the quoted portion deals specifically with the hole #4 which is the one you are obsessing over as "it must have been made when the concrete was poured".

The hole could have been made by the roof smashing into the pillar, but that doesn't explain the bent rebar going back into the concrete. Indeed one of the pillars pierced the ceiling completely, that it can happen doesn't mean that it did happen in this specific hole and that it just happened to be exactly where the bent rebar was.

That specific rebar may have always been bent back, and then a hole was made that had simply exposed part of that rebar, but not the very end which had always remained inside of the concrete. From the very low quality pictures provided, I do not even see the rebar you are referring to. I would like better angles and larger resolution images, but I don't think we have that.

They could have dissapeared in the explosion and the dynamics thereof, how could anyone be sure that they wouldn't have dissapeared? The concrete probably extended to cover more of the rebars, making the hole slightly less than 50 square cm.

Which still is not even enough for your silly Kula columns to fit.

I don't think I understand this argument, why couldn't the brick chimneys (if they were brick chimneys, I'm not sure of that) be erected around the holes if the bars haven't been cut? The bars were within the concrete so I just don't see how that interfers with the structure around them (or have I misunderstood something?).


The bars are clearly protruding from the concrete.

Image
Image

I do not understand exactly what you are claiming here. You do not have any idea what sort of induction device was there? So, if a witness says something that does not coincide with the actual holes that exist here, then that part of his testimony is discarded, and we just find someone else's contradictory it fits, and ignore anything else they say which is absurd? But somehow this small minority of cherry-picked, contradicting testimonies, complete with absurdities in every case, give one another credence? It's laughable.

As I said, there is really no evidence whatsoever of homicidal gassings at Auschwitz, just a handful of mostly jewish "eyewitness" who claim suchabsurdities. And now you are frantically trying to figure out how these ridiculous holes were somehow used.
It just seems silly to me, Pon. The building was not built to be an effective homicidal gas chamber at all. You need more than a just a room with holes smashed at the top. It would have been crude and primitive for the purpose even though the Germans had far superior designs for such things and could have made something better. Why would they make highly effective delousing chambers, but highly ineffective homicidal gas chambers to "systematically exterminate" hundreds of thousands of Jews?

What looks good is generally in the eye of the beholder, I don't think the size as estimated by the witnesses are enough to debunk it, it is also very easy for things to get exaggerated in memory in face of the gravity of the situation they were used for. The difference in size from the proposed holes on the roof and the columns aren't ludicrous (imho)

What is quite ludicrous is to think these holes were used to put Zyklon-B in to exterminate Jews in silly "Homicidal gas chambers".
These holes were clearly tampered with post-war, this has been explained by Mattogno in the link.
There are also not very good images of these holes, unfortunately. I wish we had some better images from multiple angles. I do not even see the exact rebar you are claiming is supposedly bent backwards into the concrete, which does not itself suggest anything sinister.

I think it is quite silly to be trying to determine if 1+ million Jews were murdered in homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz based on these very tiny, low quality images, that is just my thought. This is why I never cared or focused much on the holes argument. It really is not conclusive either way. If you go ahead and search my posts, I never talk about them. And really, they are not mentioned very often at all by either side.

I notice you dodged all of the other points in the previous thread. I wonder why. :?
"There is a principal which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principal is contempt prior to investigation."
-- Herbert Spencer

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1398
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: Pon's Auschwitz Aerial photographs

Postby Lamprecht » 3 months 3 weeks ago (Wed Oct 02, 2019 10:06 pm)

Pon, simply:

- The roof of Krema II collapsed when it was destroyed, causing damage

- Although it is still broken, cracked we can look at it to get a general idea of what it was like

- Possibly one or more holes could have been bashed by the Poles or Russians to fake their silly "Zyklon-B induction holes" and as described by Mattogno, some holes have been made larger over the years.

- Possibly one or more holes were made so they could see what was under the roof without having to go under there

- Possibly one or more holes could have been caused by the damage when it was demolished

- The holes seem just too crude to have been designed by Germans to be induction holes to be used to gas 100s of thousands of Jews. The one example you claim of a rebar being bent over into the concrete, it could have been bent before the hole was made. The holes do not appear to have been based on any sort of design for a roof with holes in it; the roof was clearly broken to produce the holes we see

- The holes we see today do not even line up with the marks on the aerial photos, or the holes in the drawing you provided. Rendering your entire point absolutely moot

- The various other absurdities of the laughable "Auschwitz Homicidal gas chamber" (some of which are posted in your original thread, which you ignored) show conclusively there were no Jews killed in these places with Zyklon-B at Auschwitz
"There is a principal which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principal is contempt prior to investigation."
-- Herbert Spencer

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1398
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: Pon's Auschwitz Aerial photographs

Postby Lamprecht » 3 months 3 weeks ago (Wed Oct 02, 2019 10:26 pm)

Exterminationist Holocaust "Expert" van Pelt, a 'Professor of Architecture':
"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. Yet does this mean they were never there? We know that after the cessation of the gassings in the fall of 1944 all the gassing equipment was removed, which implies both the wire-mesh columns and the chimneys. What would have remained would have been the four narrow holes and the slab. While there is no 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 hole and thus restore the slab. "

From: https://books.google.com/books?id=83dvJ ... 22&f=false


Kremas II and III, no holes on alleged 'gas chambers':
Image
(You can see bombs being dropped, no wonder they had air raid shelters)
Same day, different image. Very conveniently having title trying to cut off Krema II alleged gas chamber, but there are no holes in the exposed part:
Image


August 23, 1944 - no holes on Kremas II and III alleged 'gas chambers':
Image

Again, no holes:
Image


Interesting factoid: The CIA captions we see were made by Dino A Brugioni, who later wrote a book on Photo Fakery.

Dino A Brugioni: Photo Fakery: The History and Techniques of Photographic Deception and Manipulation
https://www.amazon.com/Photo-Fakery-His ... 1574881663
"There is a principal which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principal is contempt prior to investigation."
-- Herbert Spencer

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3400
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: Pon's Auschwitz Aerial photographs

Postby Hektor » 3 months 3 weeks ago (Thu Oct 03, 2019 8:05 am)

Lamprecht wrote:....
Again, no holes:
Image


Interesting factoid: The CIA captions we see were made by Dino A Brugioni, who later wrote a book on Photo Fakery.

Dino A Brugioni: Photo Fakery: The History and Techniques of Photographic Deception and Manipulation
https://www.amazon.com/Photo-Fakery-His ... 1574881663


As by the Holocaust Museum:


User avatar
borjastick
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2543
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:52 am
Location: Europe

Re: Pon's Auschwitz Aerial photographs

Postby borjastick » 3 months 3 weeks ago (Thu Oct 03, 2019 8:34 am)

This can all be simplified and boiled down to some simple logistics. These aerial pics of people standing on gas chamber roofs are because they were part of the claimed Hungarian gassings which by any standard of efficiency could not have happened. There was simply not enough time, capacity within the cremas and a total lack of bodies or remains afterwards. The pics are faked and anyone with half an ounce of common would see that.
'Of the four million Jews under Nazi control in WW2, six million died and alas only five million survived.'

'We don't need evidence, we have survivors' - israeli politician

Pon
Member
Member
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 10:09 am

Re: Pon's Auschwitz Aerial photographs

Postby Pon » 3 months 2 weeks ago (Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:44 am)

[NOTE: The replies regarding this document mentioned directly below has been moved to the following thread:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12781

Webmaster]

This document is a inventory for crematorium II, https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/19430331-inventory/
Near the top right, we see that there are two inventory items which have been written in by hand. They are a little difficult to make out, especially in this reproduction, but they read "Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtung" and "Holzblenden." The numeral 4 is written in each category. In this closeup, the text has been rotated ninety degrees:

Inventory: insertion devices, wooden covers.

"Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtung" is a large compound word. Words like this are quite common in the German language. Its meaning is put together from the words which form it:

der Draht - wire
das Netz - grid, net
einschieben - insert
die Vorrichtung - device, mechanism

This is best translated as "wire-mesh insertion device" or "wire-mesh introduction device."

"Holzblenden" means "wooden covers."

The only discrepancy is that they were listed for the undressing room and not the morgue (or gas chamber), (then again other items were switched between the two as well), there may be any reason for that, but just the fact that there is a inventory item which can be translated as wire-mesh introduction device should raise an eyebrow, especially if they are meant for the cellar, oh, and that there are four of them.





According to the narrative, two alleged holes were present on each side of the central beam of morgue 1. However, Germar Rudolf pointed out that air photos show the four dark spots all on the same side of the central beam for the Morgue 1 of Krema II

https://imgur.com/c9b84vi
That can be easily dismissed as the dark spots obviously aren't the holes themselves but indications of the holes, could be explained with that the germans were predominently on one side of the chimney disturbing the ground beneath them more on that side, that would shift the impression of the holes to were the germans were mainly standing. It just isn't a good argument.



It's too small to see for sure. But it is quite obvious here that the alleged holes in the aerial photo posted in the OP, which had a higher resolution, do not correspond to the holes in this image: https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... 0344.shtml

And also do not correspond to the 50 x 50cm holes mentioned in the other study you have cited.
It is a bit hard to see, it is actually reminding me more of the roof of gas chamber III, either way it corresponds to the zig-zag pattern and my guess is that although it's hard to see the roof on gas chamber II was similar to that of gas chamber III, although perhaps placed closer to the center, we are though studying dots more or less so we can't say for sure.

And there is also no actual visual evidence that there was any sort of mesh column attached/fastened to these walls/holes. They just appear to be broken through. There is nothing for anything to attach to.
Well, they don't know the details of that so we don't know how it worked, I'm sure they figured it out though, it wouldn't be that hard to build a frame around the hole and attach it to that. I didn't even need to stretch my imagination.



I do not understand exactly what you are claiming here. You do not have any idea what sort of induction device was there? So, if a witness says something that does not coincide with the actual holes that exist here, then that part of his testimony is discarded, and we just find someone else's contradictory it fits, and ignore anything else they say which is absurd? But somehow this small minority of cherry-picked, contradicting testimonies, complete with absurdities in every case, give one another credence? It's laughable.

As I said, there is really no evidence whatsoever of homicidal gassings at Auschwitz, just a handful of mostly jewish "eyewitness" who claim suchabsurdities. And now you are frantically trying to figure out how these ridiculous holes were somehow used.
It just seems silly to me, Pon. The building was not built to be an effective homicidal gas chamber at all. You need more than a just a room with holes smashed at the top. It would have been crude and primitive for the purpose even though the Germans had far superior designs for such things and could have made something better. Why would they make highly effective delousing chambers, but highly ineffective homicidal gas chambers to "systematically exterminate" hundreds of thousands of Jews?
We only have witness accounts which are to a degree unreliable, there is however many such accounts from different people (not only jews) which makes it credible that there was comumns, the unreliability is mainly in the details. I guess you know next to nothing of how to judge witnesses just like me so best leave it to the experts on how to judge the witness accounts, it's just silly trying as a layman to determine the credibility, but I do know that when a witness account corroborates with evidence, especially evidence that person couldn't have known (the inventory document, earial photos showing zig-zag placement of the holes) then it is taken seriously. Also why would several witnesses mention wire-mesh columns? Wasn't the popular belief that the gas came from the showers? At least I thought they did before looking closer at it. It seems such a out-of-place thing to invent and pretty ridiculous to think that many people have invented the same thing unrelated to eachother (there are people from many walks of life mentioning these things). I don't think that it was common knowledge at the time (just as it isn't common knowledge now) which would be required unless they all sat in a room together planning what to say.


Tauber is simply unreliable. He claimed corpses burned on their own just from the fat. He also said 5 to 8 people could be incinerated in one oven muffle. Along with many other absurdities:
Given enough heat almost anything serves as fuel (this is simply a physical fact), it is said that they needed only to add small amounts of coke once the heat was enough for the bodies to self-combust, 5 to 8 people was a exaggeration, the probable number was 3 in one muffle if I remember correctly (I could look it up if you want), I think this was raised in the Irving-Deborah trial (but it's a mess reading through everything to find it).



The building was not built to be an effective homicidal gas chamber at all. You need more than a just a room with holes smashed at the top. It would have been crude and primitive for the purpose even though the Germans had far superior designs for such things and could have made something better. Why would they make highly effective delousing chambers, but highly ineffective homicidal gas chambers to "systematically exterminate" hundreds of thousands of Jews?

As I understand it the building of Crematoria II was rushed (as was the subsequent crematorias), this in conjunction with the need to have a low profile (it should look as if it was made for something else than gassing) might be the reason for the less than excellent but still efficient for its purpose design.





These holes were clearly tampered with post-war, this has been explained by Mattogno in the link.
There are also not very good images of these holes, unfortunately. I wish we had some better images from multiple angles. I do not even see the exact rebar you are claiming is supposedly bent backwards into the concrete, which does not itself suggest anything sinister.
I would also like to see more pictures of the holes, my guess is that it is the lower rebar that is bent into the concrete, I'd like to see a better image showing that, but anyone can go there to look at it themselves so I guess it is just a matter of time before such a image comes up (maybe there is a image somewhere showing that already). It doesn't suggest, in itself, anything sinister, but it proves that it wasn't tampered with which makes it important.


Which still is not even enough for your silly Kula columns to fit.
You can repeat your claim, it doesn't make it true, obviously if physical evidence shows that the holes were less than 50 on each side then the columns had to be also (or at least the part that protruded through the roof). Why would he know the exact figures, he made a estimate, obviously physical fact trumps estimates.


Although it is still broken, cracked we can look at it to get a general idea of what it was like
A general idea, yes, but to be honest the roof is a mess.


Possibly one or more holes could have been bashed by the Poles or Russians to fake their silly "Zyklon-B induction holes" and as described by Mattogno, some holes have been made larger over the years.
For a fact, one hole was made after liberation, probably to take a look underneath it, no one knows who made it but there was no effort to cut the rebar, showing the probable intent of simply looking inside.


Possibly one or more holes could have been caused by the damage when it was demolished

- The holes seem just too crude to have been designed by Germans to be induction holes to be used to gas 100s of thousands of Jews. The one example you claim of a rebar being bent over into the concrete, it could have been bent before the hole was made. The holes do not appear to have been based on any sort of design for a roof with holes in it; the roof was clearly broken to produce the holes we see
The "gas chamber" use seems to be a late addition, why would they bend the bar? There's just no reason, in the image where they lay the roof of the undressing room no bars are seen to be bent. The damage when it was demolished could have damaged the holes so that it looks like they have been smashed in with a hammer (also explaining why the bent bars protrude through).

The holes we see today do not even line up with the marks on the aerial photos, or the holes in the drawing you provided. Rendering your entire point absolutely moot
According to the report they do line up, attention has to be made that the roof shifted and parts of it rotated, it is perfectly explained in the report.

The various other absurdities of the laughable "Auschwitz Homicidal gas chamber" (some of which are posted in your original thread, which you ignored) show conclusively there were no Jews killed in these places with Zyklon-B at Auschwitz

I notice you dodged all of the other points in the previous thread. I wonder why. :?

I haven't had time to revisit that thread, I've been quite busy with the aerial photos and the holes on the roof.





Exterminationist Holocaust "Expert" van Pelt, a 'Professor of Architecture':
"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. Yet does this mean they were never there? We know that after the cessation of the gassings in the fall of 1944 all the gassing equipment was removed, which implies both the wire-mesh columns and the chimneys. What would have remained would have been the four narrow holes and the slab. While there is no 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 hole and thus restore the slab. "

From: https://books.google.com/books?id=83dvJ ... 22&f=false
That book was made in 2002, the report on the holes was made in 2004, the simple explanation is that he just didn't know yet that the holes had been found.


https://i.imgur.com/lrnlM4Q.jpg - In this photo the marks can be seen on "gas chamber III". That not all photos show the details is probably because of exposure, if it was so important for them to fake it, then why weren't they faked on all the photos?

Interesting factoid: The CIA captions we see were made by Dino A Brugioni, who later wrote a book on Photo Fakery.

Dino A Brugioni: Photo Fakery: The History and Techniques of Photographic Deception and Manipulation
If we subvert that narrative then he probably would have spotted if they were fake. That someone writes about it doesn't mean that he himself would succumb to faking photos, at least not of this historical importance.

borjastick:I haven't heard the claim that the dark patches on the alleged gas chamber roof would have been people, it would, kind of, be a logical circle to assume that the photos are faked because the gassings couldn't have taken place. When the photos themselves are a part of the evidence for the gassings to have taken place. Admittedly it might be a logical circle to assume they are real just because we assume that the gassings are real, as well, but it shouldn't be used as a argument either way, something to be cautious of when analysing things, that we don't fall into the trap of confirmation bias.



I hope I've answered everything, if I missed something you can point it out, no need to assume I've dodged something for conveniance sake (if I don't mention that I'll answer it later, I'm pretty honest about my motives of things (as I hope has been shown in our discussion)). It was quite a trouble keeping it tidy when there's so many arguments, so my answers might not be in the order they were posted.
Last edited by Webmaster on Mon Oct 07, 2019 12:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1398
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: Pon's Auschwitz Aerial photographs

Postby Lamprecht » 3 months 2 weeks ago (Thu Oct 03, 2019 5:30 pm)

Pon wrote:
According to the narrative, two alleged holes were present on each side of the central beam of morgue 1. However, Germar Rudolf pointed out that air photos show the four dark spots all on the same side of the central beam for the Morgue 1 of Krema II

https://imgur.com/c9b84vi

That can be easily dismissed as the dark spots obviously aren't the holes themselves but indications of the holes, could be explained with that the germans were predominently on one side of the chimney disturbing the ground beneath them more on that side, that would shift the impression of the holes to were the germans were mainly standing. It just isn't a good argument.

You're not making any sense here. So the alleged holes themselves are not visible from the aerial photos, or they are? Which one is it Pon?

Exterminationist Provan claims that it is wrong to see these marks as vents, and they may be faked:
Image
On the next page, Provan states "we are hesitant to use the aerial photographs as proof that there were roof vents for Zyklon B" :lol:


It is a bit hard to see, it is actually reminding me more of the roof of gas chamber III, either way it corresponds to the zig-zag pattern and my guess is that although it's hard to see the roof on gas chamber II was similar to that of gas chamber III, although perhaps placed closer to the center, we are though studying dots more or less so we can't say for sure.

This is the image in question: download/file.php?id=1381&mode=view

I do not see any holes, much less zig zags. Please show us the holes. Then again, you just said the dark spots were not the holes themselves, but would be the Germans "disturbing the ground" around the holes, which are invisible? you're grasping at straws here Pon. The images can not prove the existence of the alleged holes if the holes would not be normally visible in the aerial photograps.

If you crop the relevant part of the image and blow it up in size, there's just no trace of any holes, Pon:

Image


Well, they don't know the details of that so we don't know how it worked, I'm sure they figured it out though, it wouldn't be that hard to build a frame around the hole and attach it to that. I didn't even need to stretch my imagination.


How do you know they didn't just drop the pellets in if you want to believe it so badly? There's not any proof that any Jew was gassed, actually. Hence why you must resort to such silly documents and photographs.



We only have witness accounts which are to a degree unreliable, there is however many such accounts from different people (not only jews) which makes it credible that there was comumns, the unreliability is mainly in the details.

No, that doesn't make them any more credible. If I lie about you, and then convince my friends also to lie about you, that doesn't make our lies any more credible.
Please post a thread on any "witness accounts" you think are credible, Pon.

There are actually very few accounts of htese ridiculous devices, the vast majority of Auschwitz testimonies (over 95%) don't mention gassing at all, and the very few that do mostly do not mention such devices whatsoever.


I guess you know next to nothing of how to judge witnesses just like me so best leave it to the experts on how to judge the witness accounts, it's just silly trying as a layman to determine the credibility, but I do know that when a witness account corroborates with evidence

I don't buy this at all, Pon. Firstly, I can use my own brain to judge witness accounts. If you think a particular witness account detailing these alleged "Devices" is credible, please make a thread on that.

You're talking about "Experts" - but please define what an "expert" is in this context. You're not making any sense, Pon. How are the revisionists who have published multiple books on this topic, at great personal cost to themselves, somehow not "experts" but you can find some Jew or other politically motivated person and they become an "expert"?

If your arguments are sound, they should be easy to defend.

especially evidence that person couldn't have known (the inventory document,

The laughable document which has been demolished above. There is no document ordering Zyklon-B be used to murder Jews. That document isn't even for the alleged gas chamber room.

earial photos showing zig-zag placement of the holes)

Except they actually do not, as shown above. You just keep repeating this despite that it has been refuted. You also even said the aerial photo doesn't show the holes, but rather "indications of the holes" from the Germans "disturbing the ground beneath them" where "the germans were mainly standing" rather than the holes.

And you ignore the aerial photos with absolutely no holes. Ouch

then it is taken seriously.

Which "witness account" do you take seriously? Please make a thread on that, Pon


Also why would several witnesses mention wire-mesh columns? Wasn't the popular belief that the gas came from the showers?


Why would someone lie against their enemy if they could easily get away with it? What is revenge? Why would anyone ever say something that is not true? Even if you think the "wire mesh" mentioning eyewitnesses were 100% honest, you are forced to admit that various other eyewitnesses lied. In fact, Jewish historian, Auschwitz survivor & Yad Vashem archives director admitted that the majority of jewish testimonies of the "Holocaust" are, in fact, "unreliable". Another Jew has claimed that Holocaust testimonies are probably the least reliable of all, for various reasons. I encourage you to make a thread on your "eyewitness".


At least I thought they did before looking closer at it. It seems such a out-of-place thing to invent and pretty ridiculous to think that many people have invented the same thing unrelated to eachother (there are people from many walks of life mentioning these things).


Not really, Pon. These individuals were at the same camp, allegedly all "Sonderkommando" and they were Jews. They had plenty of time to work together and agree on some laughable story.

What is truly "out-of-place" is the absurd alleged device and room. The nazis weren't so stupid to use something so ineffective. They could have done it a lot better.


I don't think that it was common knowledge at the time (just as it isn't common knowledge now) which would be required unless they all sat in a room together planning what to say.


Very, very few of these "eyewitnesses" mention any sort of wire mesh columns, so it's not about "they all". Can you even name five testimonies where that have claimed to have witnessed these exact columns?
"There is a principal which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principal is contempt prior to investigation."
-- Herbert Spencer

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1398
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: Pon's Auschwitz Aerial photographs

Postby Lamprecht » 3 months 2 weeks ago (Thu Oct 03, 2019 5:36 pm)

Pon wrote:Given enough heat almost anything serves as fuel (this is simply a physical fact), it is said that they needed only to add small amounts of coke once the heat was enough for the bodies to self-combust, 5 to 8 people was a exaggeration, the probable number was 3 in one muffle if I remember correctly (I could look it up if you want), I think this was raised in the Irving-Deborah trial (but it's a mess reading through everything to find it).

This is absurd. The crematoria ovens were unable to reach extreme temperatures due to their primitive designs; namely, brick and mortar. The Germans had opportunities for far superior designs to be built at Auschwitz, but they did not do it. The fragile refractory bricks of the human crematories would have been severely damaged by extremely high temperatures such as that, and the crematory ovens would have to have been stopped in order to replace those damaged bricks.

As for cremation capacity, SS Prufer, who was the builder of the ovens at Auschwitz, stated on 5 March 1946:
"I spoke about the enormous strain on the overused furnaces. I told Chief Engineer Sander: I am worried whether the furnaces can stand the excessive usage. In my presence two cadavers were pushed into one muffle instead of one cadaver. The furnaces could not stand the strain."

Kurt Prüfer stated that:

1. The cremations in the concentration camp ovens took place "more slowly" than in civilian ovens.
2. In Krema II and Krema III of Birkenau (5 three-muffle ovens) it was possible to cremate 15 cadavers in one hour, that is, the duration of a single cremation was one hour.
3. The attempt to simultaneously cremate two cadavers failed because "the furnaces could not stand the strain."

Germans did not cremate multiple bodies at once at Auschwitz. Your number is not "probable". Anyone that says they cremated multiple bodies at once is a liar, plain and simple. It's a great litmus test to see if someone is actually a credible eyewitness.

You call it an "exaggeration" but actually it's just a lie. I urge you to make a thread on cremations if you want, that's beyond the scope here. For the record, as I already pointed out, the Germans had the technology to cremate multiple bodies at once, continuously. They just didn't install it at Auschwitz.
"There is a principal which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principal is contempt prior to investigation."
-- Herbert Spencer


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests