acclaimed "eyewitness" Henryk Tauber redux

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
Moderator
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1652
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 9:23 am

Re: acclaimed "eyewitness" Henryk Tauber redux

Postby Moderator » 5 years 7 months ago (Fri Feb 21, 2014 11:43 pm)

Apparently he can't post in this topic or his posts didn't get moderation approval and so he just gave up.
Wrong. Bob can post anytime he likes. No on topic post has been or will be rejected. Please get your facts straight and let Bob speak for himself. Thanks.
M1
Only lies need to be shielded from debate, truth welcomes it.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9871
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: acclaimed "eyewitness" Henryk Tauber redux

Postby Hannover » 5 years 7 months ago (Sat Feb 22, 2014 12:05 am)

Werd:
3 cases of typhus mentioned. That ain't much. Many days does not equal all days. Also Graf seems to think that the chimenys of Auschwitz emitted smoke.
Your point, if true, is irrelevant. Do note that the IHR cites only a few deaths from the limited numbers of records they received, not what all the volumes contain. So indeed, your point is not only irrelevant, it is wrong.
Anyway, where did the 69,000 corpses and the other thousands in the 'missing' books go to if not cremated?

I'm not interested in what Graf thinks, it what can be demonstrated that matters. So far no smoke can be shown.

Prufer:
The design of the crematoria in the concentration camps is different; it does not allow any preheating of air, which causes the corpse to burn more slowly and with production of smoke. A ventilation is used to reduce the smoke and the smell of the burning corpse.
I'm not sure if Prufer supports my point or yours.

In the whole series of aerial photographs taken in 1944 (May 21, June 26, July 8, August 20, 23 & 25, September 13) and showing the crematoria of Birkenau, smoke from crematoria appears only on one such photo, that of August 20, and only over the chimney of one crematorium
(no. III). This photograph is of particular importance, because besides the chimney of crematorium III it shows smoke also over the northern yard of crematorium V.
Please show me the Aug. 20 "only over the chimney of one crematorium" photo. Curious that if it supposedly shows a smoking crematory chimney we haven't seen it before.

IMO, it matters not what someone thinks when what they think cannot be demonstrated. Simple really.

The tide is turning.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1093
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: acclaimed "eyewitness" Henryk Tauber redux

Postby Werd » 5 years 7 months ago (Sat Feb 22, 2014 12:30 am)

Oops. That August 20 photo of smoke over Krema III is the one which Robert Bartec said was not smoke. That Mattogno erred and it was in fact an artefact of the photograph.
"My conclusion is therefore that this is only an error/artifact on the photo, since the entire photo is covered by these slanted scratch lines in the same direction as the one marked by a red arrow over Crematory III. One of these scratches anomalously produced the illusion of smoke rising from that chimney."
https://codoh.com/library/document/3083/?lang=en
However, "it shows smoke also over the northern yard of crematorium V. "

Image
the direction of the smoke rising from the yard of Crematory V is roughly from south to north (long red arrow, center top)

"Hence, as of this day there is not a single known air photo of Auschwitz-Birkenau showing smoke coming out of any of the crematories. Yet there are several showing smoke billowing from a limited area in the yard of Crematory V, as for instance also on the one shot three days later, on Aug. 23, 1944, and on one taken on July 8 of that year."

Hhhhhmmm. This minor correction still does not alleviate the debate between Bob and you Hannover that I have been trying to understand. Cremations with smoke done semi regularly but done quickly enough to not get photographed, or super duper ovens that were in fact engineered to emit no smoke at all. We apparently still have to dig deeper into Prufer to find out whether he is confirming your side or Bob's. If Prufer says smoke was reduced, we still have to figure out by how much.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9871
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: acclaimed "eyewitness" Henryk Tauber redux

Postby Hannover » 5 years 7 months ago (Sat Feb 22, 2014 12:59 am)

Werd:
Hhhhhmmm. This minor correction still does not alleviate the debate between Bob and you Hannover that I have been trying to understand. Cremations with smoke done semi regularly but done quickly enough to not get photographed, or super duper ovens that were in fact engineered to emit no smoke at all. We apparently still have to dig deeper into Prufer to find out whether he is confirming your side or Bob's. If Prufer says smoke was reduced, we still have to figure out by how much.

It does not "alleviate" the debate between Bob and myself I suppose, (alleviate is a bad choice of words here) but it does rather refute your smoking crematory chimney claim about it. Again you cannot show any crematory smoke in any of the countless photos.

"Super duper ovens" or not, no crematory smoke in any of the countless photos.

I'm willing to be wrong, just show me the smoke. And do leave Bob out of it, he's an adult, yes? Perhaps you should have said: "...whether Prufer is confirming your side or mine".

Have some smoke on me.
Image

The tide is turning.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1093
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: acclaimed "eyewitness" Henryk Tauber redux

Postby Werd » 5 years 7 months ago (Sat Feb 22, 2014 1:32 am)

It does not "alleviate" the debate between Bob and myself I suppose, (alleviate is a bad choice of words here) but it does rather refute your smoking crematory chimney claim about it.

Yep. Mattogno's mistake appears in Open Air Incinerations and also The Case for Sanity regarding that one August photo regarding Krema III.

Again you cannot show any crematory smoke in any of the countless photos.

And once again, the question is why were the chimneys not smoking when Mattogno not only claimed they would in an older article, but also Graf claimed they would, and Prufer's claim is hard to decipher either way. He speaks of reducing smoke, not eliminating it completely. If merely reduced, we have no idea how much smaller the amount of smoke would be and if that would have an effect on its ability to be photographed. It seems like there are only two sides to pick on this issue. Do an about face on an old article of mattogno's and claim the chimney's never smoked at all, despite the lack of evidence that they were actually fine tuned to completely reduce all smoke emissions, or to say despite the cremation activity, one quick snapshot of a photo does not mean that was the only time the ovens could have been at work.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9871
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: acclaimed "eyewitness" Henryk Tauber redux

Postby Hannover » 5 years 7 months ago (Sat Feb 22, 2014 2:58 am)

Yep. Mattogno's mistake appears in Open Air Incinerations and also The Case for Sanity regarding that one August photo regarding Krema III.
Yep, that's zero for two. Not good for Mattogno's position

And once again, the question is why were the chimneys not smoking when Mattogno not only claimed they would in an older article, but also Graf claimed they would, and Prufer's claim is hard to decipher either way. He speaks of reducing smoke, not eliminating it completely. If merely reduced, we have no idea how much smaller the amount of smoke would be and if that would have an effect on its ability to be photographed. It seems like there are only two sides to pick on this issue. Do an about face on an old article of mattogno's and claim the chimney's never smoked at all, despite the lack of evidence that they were actually fine tuned to completely reduce all smoke emissions, or to say despite the cremation activity, one quick snapshot of a photo does not mean that was the only time the ovens could have been at work.
Neither Mattogno or Graf has shown us proof. It's understandable they would think as much, burning something often creates smoke. And as shown, Mattogno was wrong about the aerials, twice. I'm not sure what work Graf has done in regards to this, perhaps he's just referencing Mattogno.
Probably not authoritative, but didn't attorney Doug Christie, at the Zundel trial, bust "eyewitness" Friedman on the 'smoking chimneys'? Saying something like 'that's not how they work'.
Prufer is little fuzzy, but it's clear that steps were taken. And not seeing smoke could very well mean he was very good at eliminating such smoke.
There's plenty of evidence the cremation process was "fine tuned", that being the complete lack of smoke coming from crematory chimneys.
There was no "quick snapshot of a photo", there were / are countless photos. You keep repeating yourself.
No, there is only one side, show me smoking chimneys out of the endless numbers of photographs or you have no case. Show me and I'll admit I was wrong and move on.

The tide is turning.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1093
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: acclaimed "eyewitness" Henryk Tauber redux

Postby Werd » 5 years 7 months ago (Sat Feb 22, 2014 9:50 am)

Yep, that's zero for two. Not good for Mattogno's position

Or your position because you made a couple of errors with Taube's testimony. You said on page one that Tauber said benches were in the gas chambers and Tauber in fact said it was the dressing rooms next to the gas chambers. Also, you claimed that Tauber said they threw eight bodies in to create smoke to signal the allies, when in fact he stated fire. Go back and see what I quoted. Nobody's perfect. But that's why we're all on this board. To assist each other. At first I thought you were on this smoking issue so much because Tauber was talking about constant smoke, but in fact he was talking about constant fire. So you're not sticking with this non smoking issue due to a misunerstanding of Tauber. You are sticking with it because of the lack of smoke from ariel photographs. PLUS, we have found testimony of Prufer saying that ovens needed to be fine tuned to reduce the smoke. As stated earlier, Prufer can go either way for you or I. So your position is not totally unreasonable. I do see that. But I need to dig more into Prufer to see if smoke was totally elimiinated because right now, I have seen no proof of that. I only have that quote about fine tuning the crematoria for reducing smoke, not eliminating it completely.

Neither Mattogno or Graf has shown us proof. It's understandable they would think as much, burning something often creates smoke. And as shown, Mattogno was wrong about the aerials, twice.

He was wrong about one ariel in August 1944 showing smoke from Krema III in two seperate publications, yes.

didn't attorney Doug Christie, at the Zundel trial, bust "eyewitness" Friedman on the 'smoking chimneys'? Saying something like 'that's not how they work'.

A newspaper article was written here.
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/docs/con ... edman.html
I think Friedman was also the one who said he could tell the nationality of the Jews by the colours of the flames from the chimneys. Douglas Christie had this to say about Friedman.
You have heard the evidence of many witnesses and I'd like to briefly capsulize some of the significant things about their evidence. You remember Arnold Freedman. He was transported in cattle cars. He constantly smelled the smoke in Birkenau and saw it belching from chimneys. I want you to consider a very significant question which has troubled me. To create belching chimneys, day in and day out, twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week for weeks on end, one needs coal or coke, large quantities of coal or coke. I've heard all the evidence, as you have, of the process of unloading the people into the concentration camps. Why would all those people be unloaded by the helpless prisoners like Dr. Vrba, and the coal be unloaded by the S.S.? Keep in mind, in the days of 1940 to 1944, we didn't have backhoes, right? We didn't have caterpillars unloading these trucks, coal cars. Everything was apparently done by hand. Well, you know, it makes me very, very interested, to put it mildly, that all this smoke and burning chimneys and flames shooting forth should occur with nobody unloading coke trains. Did you hear anybody talk of unloading coke trains? I didn't?

http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=1024

Flames and smoke are mentioned in Friedman's nonsensical testimony.

Prufer is little fuzzy, but it's clear that steps were taken. And not seeing smoke could very well mean he was very good at eliminating such smoke.
There's plenty of evidence the cremation process was "fine tuned", that being the complete lack of smoke coming from crematory chimneys.

If that is the case, then it would explain your position. If they found a way to fine tune the ovens before the photographs were being taken by the allies I could accept that since I have seen photos of chimneys in Birkenau with soot on them. And as far as I know, soot buildup on the outside upper edge of a chimney results from smoking activity.

Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1093
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: acclaimed "eyewitness" Henryk Tauber redux

Postby Werd » 5 years 7 months ago (Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:19 am)

Zulu @ Testimonies on flames from Auschwitz crematorium chimneys
Zulu wrote:
Bob wrote:TheBlackRabbitofInlé - crematoria in concentration camps (or in Auschwitz which is in question here) worked differently than civilian crematoria, smoke was emitted from the chimneys, this is also supported by photos which show layer of soot on the top of the chimneys.[1]

Kurt Prüfer:[2]

“In den zivilen Krematorien wird mittels eines speziellen Blasebalgs bereits vorher erhitzte Luft eingeblasen, wodurch die Leiche rascher und ohne Rauch verbrennt. Die Konstruktion der Krematorien für die Konzentrationslager ist anders; sie ermöglicht es nicht, die Luft im voraus zu erhitzen, weshalb die Leiche langsamer und unter Rauchentwicklung verbrennt. Um den Rauch sowie den Geruch des verbrennenden Leichnams zu verringern, wird eine Ventilation eingesetzt.”


Translation from the book of Carlo Mattogno:[3]

“In the civilian crematoria preheated air is injected by means of special bellows, causing the corpse to burn more quickly and without smoke. The design of the crematoria in the concentration camps is different; it does not allow any preheating of air, which causes the corpse to burn more slowly and with production of smoke. A ventilation is used to reduce the smoke and the smell of the burning corpse.”


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes

[1]Jean-Claude Pressac, Auschwitz: Technique and operation of the gas chambers, The Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, New York 1989, p. 341.; The Auschwitz Album, Peter Hellman, Lili Meier, Beate Klarsfeld, 1981, p. 4, p. 14, p. 15, p. 19.
[2]Jürgen Graf, Anatomie der sowjetischen Befragung der Topf-Ingenieure, Die Verhöre von Fritz Sander, Kurt Prüfer, Karl Schultze und Gustav Braun durch Offiziere der sowjetischen Antispionageorganisation Smersch (1946/1948), 2002, p. 404.
[3]Carlo Mattogno, Auschwitz:The Case for Sanity, Published by The Barnes Review, 2010, p. 197.

From Jean-Claude Pressac in his interview by Valérie Igounet on June 15, 1995.
Lors du premier congrès européen sur l'incinération à Dresde en 1878, des règles strictes furent définies pour la conduite des incinérations. Les entreprises édifiant les fours durent s'y soumettre. L'une de ces règles indiquait que «les produits de l'incinération ne doivent pas empester le voisinage». Les fumées et les odeurs étaient proscrites. La firme Topf, dont l'activité première, dès sa fondation, était la
construction des foyers en tout genre, avait la hantise des émissions de fumées, signe d'un mauvais réglage du foyer. Un de ses prospectus commerciaux interpellait les futurs clients avec cet avertissement: «Si votre cheminée fume, vous perdez de l'argent». Les fours d'incinération TOPF ne fumaient pas et ceux des firmes concurrentes non plus.
[...]
Interrogé sur l'incinération concentrationnaire par les Soviétiques après son arrestation en mars 1946, Prüfer leur en expliqua les caractéristiques. Les fours d'incinération civils fonctionnent avec de l'air préalablement chauffé, si bien que le cadavre s'incinère plus vite et sans fumées. Comme les fours dans les camps furent structurés autrement, l'emploi de ce procédé était impossible. Les cadavres s'incinéraient plus lentement et des fumées se développaient. Pour contrer cela, il suffisait de pulser de l'air dans le creuset incinérateur. En effet, les trois fours bimoufle du crématoire 1 du camp central d'Auschwitz étaient équipés de souffleries. Les fours trimoufle montés
au crématoire de Buchenwald et dans les crématoires II et III de Birkenau pareillement. En opérant ainsi, avec une technique identique au soufflage d'air sur un feu de forge, Prüfer obtenait une durée de crémation proche de ses fours civils et évitait la formation de fumées. Par contre, les fours à huit moufles des crématoires IV et V n'en comportaient pas, mais compensaient cela par un fort tirage avec deux
cheminées de seize mètres de haut.


Translation

When the first European congress on incineration in Dresden in 1878, strict rules were defined for the performance of cremations. Companies constructing ovens had to submit. One of these rules stated that "the products of cremation should not stink up the neighborhood." Smokes and odors were outlawed. The firm Topf, whose primary activity, since its foundation, was the manufacture of ovens of all kinds, was obsessed by smoke emissions, a sign of poor furnace's setting. One of its commercial leaflets called future clients with this warning: "If your chimney smokes, you lose money." Cremation furnaces from Topf didn't smoke and either those of competing firms.
[...]
Asked about the cremation in concentration camps by the Soviets after his arrest in March 1946, Prüfer explained the features to them. Civilian cremation ovens operate with preheated air so that the body burns more quickly and without smoke. As ovens in the camps were structured differently, the use of this method was impossible. The bodies were cremated more slowly and smokes were generated. To counter this, it was enough to pump air into the muffle incinerator. In fact, the three bi-muffle ovens of the Krema I at Auschwitz I were equipped with airblowers. The tri-muffle ovens mounted at the crematorium of Buchenwald and at Kremas II and III of Birkenau were alike. By doing this, with a technique similar to blowing air on a fire of forge, Prüfer got times of cremation close to those of his civilian ovens and avoided the formation of smoke. By cons, the eight-muffles ovens of Kremas IV and V did not include it, but they compensated by a strong draw through two sixteen meters high chimneys.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Source Jean-Claude Pressac, Textes Divers, p 56-58. http://archive.org/details/TextesDivers
Extract from "Entretien avec Jean-Claude Pressac" (Interview with JC Pressac) realized by Valérie Igounet, in La Ville-du-
Bois, on thursday 15 June 1995" and published in the book "Histoire du négationnisme en
France", Paris, Le Seuil, 2000. (p 648-649)


Well....look at that. Evidence of fine tuning ovens. We have a quote talking about the reduction of smoke and now we have a quote talking about the avoiding of formation of smoke. I am going to see if this quote shows up in The Case For Sanity and I just missed it.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9871
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: acclaimed "eyewitness" Henryk Tauber redux

Postby Hannover » 5 years 7 months ago (Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:28 am)

I've addressed Tauber & his 8 corpses, which according to Bob would necessarily have caused smoke, and with this alleged number of corpses would have necessarily caused smoke. Wrong? Not really.
I've addressed the canard about the dressing room (which is, well, part of the alleged 'gas chamber') Wrong? Not really.
And as stated in this thread, I will clean up Tauber's follies a bit the next time I post them.
Please actually read what I post.
"Exactitude", as Dr. Robert Faurisson says, certainly.

Mattogno was wrong in two publications, yes. He should have known better than to make the same mistake twice. He still cannot show us a single photo of a smoking chimney. Statistically unmanageable.

Werd:
Flames and smoke are mentioned in Friedman's nonsensical testimony.
Yes. I already said that.
And indeed, Friedman is simply a liar about many things.
What was said:
"I suggest it is quite impossible for smoke to come from a crematoria from human beings," said Doug Christie, whose client is charged with spreading false news. "What do you say about that, sir?"

"Nothing," Arnold Friedman, prisoner number B14515, initially replied. "If you're talking of crematoria in Toronto and crematoria in Auschwitz, those are two different things. In Birkenau (part of Auschwitz complex), smoke came out of the chimney."

"I put it to you that you don't really understand anything about crematoria, to say: 'Aha, that is a crematorium,' because that is quite wrong, sir," Mr. Christie said.
source: http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/docs/con ... edman.html

Werd:
If that is the case, then it would explain your position. If they found a way to fine tune the ovens before the photographs were being taken by the allies I could accept that since I have seen photos of chimneys in Birkenau with soot on them. And as far as I know, soot buildup on the outside upper edge of a chimney results from smoking activity.
Please do not ignore the fact that I mentioned the reasons for small amounts of smoke which could cause some soot to accumulate on a chimney.
1. upon initial fire-up
2. muffle malfunction
3. unusual moisture
4. Add in: upon shut down, like a candle when extinguished
The possibilities seem like many.
Please read what I post.

Show me photos of smoking chimneys and the argument is over.

The tide is turning.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1093
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: acclaimed "eyewitness" Henryk Tauber redux

Postby Werd » 5 years 7 months ago (Sat Feb 22, 2014 11:09 am)

As I said, that quote from Prufer about fine tuning is interesting and not to be overlooked. I am now at the point where I can see that it looks as if Bob has either avoided the correction from Zulu or he is just ignorant of it.

Back on page one.

Hannover:
Impossible, there was not enough space for 8 corpses, and more than one corpse per muffle would have caused damage to the oven, as stated by the builder of the crematoria, SS Kurt Prufer. Plus, the crematoria at Auschwitz gave off practically no smoke...as evidenced by many wartime aerial photos.


Bob:
I am not aware of such statement from Kurt Prüfer, you can quote, but is correct that more corpses mean a risk of damages to the brickwork leaving aside other factors. Tauber did not say that he wanted to produce smoke, the issue is more serious, he informed us that he wanted to have "a bigger fire emerging from the chimney". This sentence thus informs us that not only he wanted to produce bigger fire, there was a fire even without this alleged practice albeit smaller, he made clear that alleged fire was a direct consequence of cremating the corpses. False of course. Crematoria emitted smoke as stated by Prüfer and as evidenced by layer of soot accumulated at the top of the crematoria chimneys, mainly on one side obviously because of a wind direction. And as I have informed in the thread where I provided the photos, in some cases this layer was accumulated in just a few or several weeks. Smoke is not visible on any photograph (ground/aerial) because crematoria were not active.

Let's examine the hyperlinks one by one.

1. he informed us
2. as stated by Prüfer
3. layer of soot

#2 is Bob » Wed Jan 09, 2013 9:34 pm in Testimonies on flames from Auschwitz crematorium chimney on page two. He pops up on page five
Bob @ Testimonies on flames from Auschwitz crematorium chimneys
to inform us he is in fact Robert Bartec and that he wrote the article with Germar Rudolf. On page eight, Zulu takes that quote Bob posted on page two about Prufer saying the chimneys smoked and then provided us with a supplementary quote from Prufer saying the problem of smoking was basically fixed later. Zulu's post of this came in at Tue Jan 15, 2013 11:13 am. On page ten he corrects a source for the blackrabbit at Fri Jan 03, 2014 11:27 am. Then he never makes another appearance in the topic again. But the fact that he came back after that supplementary quote from Zulu tells me that Bob either read that quote from Prufer which talked about fine tuing the ovens to stop the emission of smoke, or he ignored it. Either way, this is very interesting.

#3. This is a post from Bob on Mon Jan 28, 2013 7:58 pm in the topic Smoke from crematorium chimneys in aerial photos on page one (the topic is only two pages). Here he gives footnotes in his posts to a bunch of online photos of chimneys in auschwitz-birkenau. In the first footnote, he has a bunch of photos and he says none of them show smoke. He then has a second footnote in this post saying which are the best three in his opinion. Of those three he says
none of them shows smoking chimney. August 20 is good too, but a little bit blurry and with the artifacts across the photo. May 31 1944 is worse, but still sufficient I think. December 1944 photo is worse and probably irrelevant I think as the crematoria were in the state of dismantling except for K-V. June 26, July 8, I never saw some good versions, only low resolution versions.

If I count correctly, we have some 9 high quality photos, (aerial + ground) covering period of Summer 1943, May, August, September 1944. We have only three low quality photos and one (August 20) which stands in the middle I guess. Nine photos against three, i think that this is not a problem of detection or quality - crematoria are not active.

So is Bob now arguing that there is no smoke because they were in a state of dismantling? That could feasibly work for his argument that crematoria smoked. But hannover, you also have an argument on your side about Prufer's statement regarding fine tuning to eliminate smoke emissions. I will not bother reciting the whole topic as others can simply read it here.
Smoke from crematorium chimneys in aerial photos
I just want to point out that as far as I can see, Bob has not addressed that quote from Prufer where he basically implied that all smoke emissions could have been easily eliminated. Fine tuned if you will. Now that I dug a little deeper and found that quote from PRUFER HIMSELF, I am beginning to wonder if Bob and Germar Rudolf and Carlo Mattogno should take a harder look at this issue. But first I am going to look for his actual words and not rely on Pressace's summary of them although I do suspect Pressac is not lying on that front. If I can find those words from Prufer himself, I will then ask myself another question or questions. Are Bob, Germar Rudolf and Carlo Mattogno aware of it? If not, will they mention it in future publications? Like, will the English version of Mattogno's and Graf's book that is now in Italian be fixed or updated to deal with this Prufer quote? Will it even be in there? If it is not, it will make me think twice about Mattogno.

Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1093
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: acclaimed "eyewitness" Henryk Tauber redux

Postby Werd » 5 years 7 months ago (Sat Feb 22, 2014 11:30 am)

Interrogated by SMERSCH / Topf engineers, Kurt Prufer, etc.
Question: How do the crematoriums for the concentration camps differ from the ones for civilian use?
Answer: The crematoriums for civilians had only one introduction opening (muffle) for the cremation of the corpse, in rare cases two. The crematoriums for the concentration camps had three introduction openings. The size of the introduction opening is smaller in the crematoriums for concentration camps – 70 x 70 cm -, the length two meters, against two meters thirty for civilian crematoriums. Instead of a wheeled carriage on tracks, which is used to drive the corpse in a coffin into the introduction openings, is the corpse in the crematoriums of concentration camps slid on a hand carried stretcher without a coffin into the oven. In civilian crematoriums preheated air is blown into the muffle, which will result in a quick and smokeless cremation. The design of the crematoriums for the concentration camps is different; it does not make it possible to preheat the air, and therefore the corpse will burn slower and under smoke development. In order to reduce the smoke as well as the smell of the burning corpse a forced air system is provided.

Hannover » Sat Jan 25, 2003 5:17 am

Apparently Pruefer's method worked well, aerial photos of the period show no smoke from the crematoriums.

Wow. Looks like Pressace's rendering of Prufer's words are accurate. I would just like to know if there is any statement from anyone, Prfuer included, about exactly when this forced air injection method occured and when it was engineered.
A new book written by Mattogno with the help of Graf.
If this bit of testimony does not show up in Mattogno's new book about Prufer's testimony, at least when the English one comes out, I will not be purchasing it. If it also does not show up in the English version of creamtory ovens of auschwitz, I may not purchase that either. If revisionists don't start taking this into account, I think it would be a shame. Hannover, I appreciate your patience with me. I was forced to go and look back over some things and look what I found. :) You may have just scored a slam dunk with this one.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9871
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: acclaimed "eyewitness" Henryk Tauber redux

Postby Hannover » 5 years 7 months ago (Sat Feb 22, 2014 11:53 am)

On a specific point, I believe there are certainly more than "9 high quality photos" which do not show smoke. Bob is simply looking at only 9 and implies that this is the total amount period. Bad boy.

Werd:
If revisionists don't start taking this into account, I think it would be a shame.
Werd, I wouldn't make that big of a deal about it. As I said, this point is small beer. Revisionists such as Mattogno, Graf, & Rudolf have so many facts which utterly demolish the 'holocaust' storyline that this smoke issue, one way or the other, is a side show. It does however, like the ridiculous flaming chimneys nonsense, trash the "survivor" tales of "belching smoke". But, like I said, if a new batch of photos are found which show this smoke, then so be it, next. It changes very little.

Thanks, but it's not about scoring points, it's about getting matters straight, doing our best to discover real history.

The tide is turning.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

Bob
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2012 5:49 am

Re: acclaimed "eyewitness" Henryk Tauber redux

Postby Bob » 5 years 7 months ago (Sat Feb 22, 2014 1:01 pm)

Let´s give it a try for one more time and I hope that my comment will stay here this time. For treatment´s of the "issue" I direct readers to my comments starting on page 1 of this thread, nothing new and relevant since then and crematoria did smoke during their operation. I again repeat, there is no known photo with smoking chimney of Auschwitz-Birkenau crematoria because crematoria were not active when the photos known so far were taken. So please, stop requesting such photo.

Hannover wrote:On a specific point, I believe there are certainly more than "9 high quality photos" which do not show smoke. Bob is simply looking at only 9 and implies that this is the total amount period. Bad boy.


Here is Hannover misrepresenting my commentwhich is this:

"The best aerial photos are these three.[2], none of them shows smoking chimney. August 20 is good too, but a little bit blurry and with the artifacts across the photo. May 31 1944 is worse, but still sufficient I think. December 1944 photo is worse and probably irrelevant I think as the crematoria were in the state of dismantling except for K-V. June 26, July 8, I never saw some good versions, only low resolution versions.

If I count correctly, we have some 9 high quality photos, (aerial + ground) covering period of Summer 1943, May, August, September 1944. We have only three low quality photos and one (August 20) which stands in the middle I guess. Nine photos against three, i think that this is not a problem of detection or quality - crematoria are not active."


So as you can clearly read, I am clearly pointing out there are more than 9 photos, but this was not issue in the debate with "friedrichjansson," we debated if photos are able to detect chimney smoke because of their quality so the issue was quality of photos, and as clearly visible, number 9 refers exclusively to high quality photos and not to total number which I myself pointed out to be higher. Will Hannover admit his error an apologize?

Hannover wrote:As I said, this point is small beer.


This is false since if crematoria did not smoke during their operation, everyone can arbitrary claim that intensive cremations are taking place in the crematoria but cannot be seen. This is of course false and serious assertion, read my comments again.

And my question again: "What arguments and evidence Hannover has to support his theory that crematoria did not emit smoke during their operation?"

Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1093
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: acclaimed "eyewitness" Henryk Tauber redux

Postby Werd » 5 years 7 months ago (Sat Feb 22, 2014 2:19 pm)

This is false since if crematoria did not smoke during their operation, everyone can arbitrary claim that intensive cremations are taking place in the crematoria but cannot be seen.

This reminds me of the argument Friedrich Paul Burg and Robert Faurisson have gotten into. Roberto doesn't want to give assent to any of Friedrich's arguments about killing passengers in train delousing facilities because then that will allow witnesses to claim, "Oh wait, it did happen that way," and then all revisionism will be for naught. But as illustated we have nothing to worry about because even if they did not use diesel but used "produce gas" instead, it would still not mean the refutation of revisionism.
Werd @ Poison Gas: Another Fuel for Motor Transport

I would say Bob that if this is a conern of yours, then one should direct readers to The Case For Sanity where MANY cases are shown of oven breakdowns and repairs, not to mention the dismantling of at least some that you state happened in 1944. Hence even if revisionism doesn't agree on the smoke issue, we still have the gas chamber mongers beat on how it was NOT a continuous assembly line killing machine. Seized German documents showing the many and sometimes semi frequent problems of ovens attest to this.

Hannover, would you say, in light of Bob's post, that it is too late for people now to claim that the bodies were burned and gas chamber victims are real but now we realized, "oh wait there was no smoke" so we have nothing to worry about? We need not fear if someone tries to claim that cremations were happening but they gave off no smoke because they were apparently tweaked as Prufer claimed? Because they've already been tied to their words about huge flames from the chimneys?

And my question again: "What arguments and evidence Hannover has to support his theory that crematoria did not emit smoke during their operation?"

Only that there were so many photos that it would seem inconceivable that they were all not working at the exact times the photos were all snapped. He was arguing from numbers and probabilities. Then I went digging and found a quote from Prufer saying that the problem of smoking was minimized or else eliminated altogether. And this is what I was talking about up near the top of page three.

I went over some old topics and found that in theblackrabbit's thread, Zulu quoted an extract from Pressace whereby he summarized a statement from Prufer saying that after realizing the Birkenau crematoria smoked like civilian crematoria, they had to fix it. That's what the red text from Zulu was about. So I pondered that Pressac may or may not have correctly summarized Prufer's statement to that effect to the Soviets. Low and behold I found on old thread with massive extracts from Prufer's statement to the Soviets. Low and behold, I found the quote that Pressac summarized accurately. And you Bob, never responded to Zulu's quote from Pressac summarizing Prufer's claim that smoke emission was drastically, if not totally reduced even though you posted at least once more in that topic AFTER he posted that quote. I was puzzled by it.

Bob
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2012 5:49 am

Re: acclaimed "eyewitness" Henryk Tauber redux

Postby Bob » 5 years 7 months ago (Sat Feb 22, 2014 3:22 pm)

Werd wrote:I was puzzled by it.


Puzzled by what? My comment is on page 3, Zulu´s comment on the page 8, since I did not follow the thread with every page or with every comment, how I would have know about it? There is no puzzle, Pressac´s comment had been addressed and analyzed many years ago and again in this thread with this article. And no, Pressac did not correctly summarized Prufer´s statement, he did not say they were able to avoid smoke, he said that in order to "reduce smoke" they employed ventilation, thus reduction and not elimination acc. to Prufer.

If somebody has a study, evidence, arguments that crematoria did not produce smoke during operation, please show them otherwise there is no basis for this assertion whereas there are many facts used for demonstration that they emitted smoke, re-read the thread.


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] and 10 guests