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
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 3:52 pm)

Bob says:
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.
Wishful thinking. As I said a million times, there are countless photos, there were tens of thousands of cremated corpses, no chimneys can be demonstrated as smoking. Just saying that in normal operation the chimneys gave off smoke is is hardly the same as showing that they gave off smoke. An inconvenient fact that refuses to go away.

Bob says:
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?
Bob, the core of your problem here lies in your saying "Nine photos against three, I think that this is not a problem of detection or quality - crematoria are not active.". This means you are making a false assumption about cremations not occurring based upon only 9 photos, when in fact you know there are countless photos. There is no error to admit, at least not from my end.

This one again:
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

Simple one, if the crematory chimneys did not smoke during normal operation then indeed one would not see smoke, which is exactly what the photos tell us. Unless shown otherwise this is true since there are no smoking chimneys in any photo, not one. If you find the problem to be serious then that is your problem. As said, this debate is a side show, small beer to the enormity of the facts on the side of Revisionists.

Bob says:
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.
I've re-read the thread Ad nauseam. The clear evidence and argument is the lack of smoke in the endless photos. Imagine 'smoking chimneys' that magically do not show up on film. Incredible! Rather like vampire and mirrors.

Show me photos of smoking chimneys and the debate ends. What do they say in Missouri? You got it, "Show Me".

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 4:03 pm)

Wishful thinking is thinking, but not not Bob´s, if you cannot present arguments, please do not make irrelevant comments. No apologize, ok.

Hannover wrote:Show me photos of smoking chimneys and the debate ends.


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:I've re-read the thread Ad nauseam. The clear evidence and argument is the lack of smoke in the endless photos.

Production of smoke is known natural phenomena thus we know it existed, if not captured on the photo is thus irrelevant especially when the source of the phenomena is not active.

Here the still unanswered parts which make quite clear that there is zero:

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

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.

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 4:31 pm)

You're simply repeating everything that has been addressed. Your problem is not going away.

Bob:
Wishful thinking is thinking, but not not Bob´s, if you cannot present arguments, please do not make irrelevant comments. No apologize, ok.
I've presented my argument, you ignore it, your problem. All my comments are relevant, you may not like them, but the facts are facts. You cannot wish my argument away.

Bob:
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.
Given the numbers cremated, your 'no cremations were happening when countless photos were taken' is statistically absurd, Bob.

Production of smoke is known natural phenomena thus we know it existed, if not captured on the photo is thus irrelevant especially when the source of the phenomena is not active.
Sure it is unless countermeasures are taken. So, is that why crematories most everywhere do not smoke unless there is a problem? Is that why Prufer said he took steps against the smoke? Please re-read the thread.

No unanswered parts, Bob, I have answered you loud and clear, you just do not like it. Please re-read the thread.

more pictures of Auschwitz where the chimneys are not smoking:
Image
Image
Image
Touche'.

Scour the web, Bob, pictures everywhere.

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 5:03 pm)

http://vho.org/tr/2004/1/Mattogno73-78.html
On June 15, 1995, Pressac gave a long interview to a certain Valérie Igounet, the content of which was obviously reworded before publication. Pressac declared:
____________________________________________________________________________________________

...When, after his arrest in March 1946, Kurt Prüfer was interrogated by the Soviets on the subject of the crematoria in the concentration camps, he explained their design details. Ovens for civilian use operated with pre-heated air, which caused the corpses to burn rapidly and without smoke.

The ovens in the camps being of a different design, such a measure could not be applied. The corpses burnt more slowly and smoke did develop. In order to prevent this from happening, it was sufficient to blow air into the incineration chamber.

The three double-muffle ovens of crematorium I in the Auschwitz Stammlager were indeed equipped with blowers. This also applied to the triple-muffle ovens at Buchenwald and crematoria II and III at Birkenau. Prüfer, by using a technique identical to the use of bellows to fan the fire of a blacksmith, achieved a combustion time approaching that of civilian furnaces and was able to avoid smoke generation. On the other hand, the eight-muffle ovens of crematoria IV and V did not have blowers, but this lack was compensated for by the strong draft generated in the two 16-meter smokestacks. Regarding the ovens produced by the Kori company in Berlin, these were fired with fuel oil or coke and were fabricated or built without blowers."



It is no doubt true that crematoria were not supposed to smoke, in accordance with the pious wishes of their promoters. It is, however, also a fact that all furnaces, in particular those using coke as fuel, did smoke to a greater or lesser extent. Instead of looking at the cremation diagrams, Pressac satisfied himself with the "rules."

For instance, the oven used in the Dessau crematorium by the engineer Richard Kessler for his experiments in 1926 and 1927 (fifty years after the Dresden meeting) smoked invariably in all cases and with any kind of fuel used - coke, gas, or (brown coal) briquettes. Kessler, it must be remembered, was one of the foremost German authorities of his day in the field of cremation. For his tests, he used an oven manufactured by the Beck Bros. company of Offenbach with some of his own improvements; it was in no way inferior to the Topf ovens.

The diagrams illustrating the operation of the oven included a graph for the "representation of smoke development," which distinguished between three colors of smoke, viz. "black," "dark," and "light." The draft indication for the grid was two-fold and distinguished between the force of the draft at "normal combustion" and at "smoke combustion." The first combustion using gas (the oven was equipped with a gas burner in addition to a gas generator) resulted in smoke for something like an hour: During the second and the seventh cremation with coke, smoke was produced for approximately 20 minutes.[13]

In the 1940s, the problem was still so acute that another specialist of cremation, the Swiss engineer Hans Keller decided in 1944to study it scientifically. He published his findings in an article entitled "Causes of smoke generation during cremation."[14] It follows that civilian furnaces regularly produced smoke.

We will now consider the interrogation of the Topf engineer Kurt Prüfer by Captain Shatanovski and Major Morushenko of the Soviet anti-espionage organization Smersh. On March 5, 1946, Prüfer declared:[15]

"In civilian crematoria, preheated air is injected by means of special bellows, making for a rapid and smokeless incineration of the corpse. The design of the crematoria for concentration camps was different; it did not allow preheating of the air and thus resulted in a slower combustion of the corpse and in the production of smoke. In order to reduce the amount of smoke generated as well as the odor of the burning corpse, a ventilation was employed."

Thus, according to Prüfer, the smokestacks of the Topf ovens installed in the concentration camps did indeed smoke, and the installation of an air blower (translated erroneously as "ventilatsia," ventilation, in the Russian text), while reducing the smoke, did not eliminate it completely.

By contrast, Pressac argues that for an elimination of the smoke it was sufficient "de pulser de l'air dans le creuset incinérateur" (to pump air into the incineration chamber) - as if the phenomenon were simply caused by a lack of combustion air. In reality the coke ovens operated with an enormous excess of air. Experience shows that the smoke is caused

- either because the combustion gases are cooled down too much in the recuperator or in the flue, to the point that there is no after-burning,

- or because of an inability of the smokestack to handle the gases (as asserted by Keller),

- or (as was the case in the first electric oven built by Topf for the Erfurt crematorium) because the draft in the chimney is too high, causing coal particles, which constitute the visible smoke and the soot, to leave the smokestack unburnt.


Image
Image
Photograph 8: Soot deposits on the outside of the chimney of crematorium II at Birkenau (top right: enlarged view)[16]


In any case, the injection of cold air into the muffles

Woooow. Wait a second. Who said anything about COLD air? I didn't see that from Pressac, did anyone? I didn't see it from Prufer, did anyone? Why would Mattogno say that? Even if I don't know where he gets this from it is apparently irrelevant for the following reason.

(the Topf ovens at Auschwitz did not possess any device for preheating the combustion air)

Interesting. If Mattogno is going by the diagrams and he is correct that there was no way to inject hot air to add to the combusion air, he probably wins on this one and Hannover may have to back off of Pressac/Prufer for a minute.

would have caused nothing but a worsening of the problem and yet more smoke. Prüfer's explanation is technically unfounded. His attempts at reducing the smoke not only did not reduce it, they made matters worse.

I have to wonder why Prufer would say something like this therefore. Should we think nothing of it? Something of it? That he felt pressured to say this? If so, for what reason? Or is it irrelevant given the claims Mattogno is making about the absence of the ability to do just what Prufer is claiming under Soviet interrogation they did?

With respect to the specific topic of the Topf ovens at Auschwitz, it would be technically erroneous and in contradiction with obvious facts to maintain that they did not smoke. These ovens, as we have seen, were not equipped with the technical devices to monitor the production of smoke (flue gas analyzers) or to prevent it (such as the recycling loop to burn smoke as used at Dessau), which civilian ovens possessed. Their coarse and simple design invariably led to smoke generation.

Point for Mattogno? :?

In this regard, it is sufficient to realize that for the triple-muffle oven, the most common type at Birkenau, the blower, which fed combustion air into the muffles, could not be controlled individually for each chamber; moreover, combustion in the three muffles was controlled by a single flue damper. Hence, optimum combustion control for the three muffles was impossible in practice, but not even that would have eliminated the smoke. In crematoria IV and V, the situation was even worse, because a single damper served four muffles!

On the other hand, on the subject of a photograph of crematorium II at Birkenau taken in the summer of 1943, Pressac writes in his first book:

"The crematorium had already been in use as can be seen from the soot near the top of the chimney."

It is indeed possible to distinguish soot deposits at a level of over 15 meters on the outside of the chimney (see photograph 8). This means that, when the ovens were in operation, the chimney did produce smoke, and not just a little bit. Pressac is, therefore, in contradiction not only with the facts but with himself as well.

Pressac's argument - that the eight-muffle ovens of crematoria IV and V compensated for the absence of suction blowers "by a strong draft" made possible by the two 16-meter chimneys - is profoundly absurd, because the height of the chimneys for crematoria II/III and IV/V was practically identical (15.46 vs. 16 m), and their cross section areas were also proportionally identical. For crematoria II/III, each of the three channels making up the chimney had a cross sectio arean of 0.96 m2 and served six muffles, whereas each of the two chimneys at crematoria IV/V had a cross section area of 0.64 m2 and served 4 muffles. A simple comparison shows that the relative areas per muffle were identical (0.64÷0.96=4/6)!

Finally, Pressac's assertion that in the Auschwitz crematoria it was possible to achieve a combustion rate approaching that of the civilian furnaces, thanks to the blowers (i.e., the duration of the incinerations was reduced), lacks any technical basis. In the Topf ovens supplied to Auschwitz, the air ducts coming from the blower ran transversally through the upper rear portion of their brickwork. Perpendicular to them, secondary ducts ran lengthwise above the vaulted ceiling of the muffles and connected to four openings in this ceiling.

Thus, combustion air was fed into the muffles from above. A similar air injection system had already been tested in the gas-fired ovens I and II of the Zurich crematorium (1931-1932). According to professor Paul Schläpfer (1938), experience showed this system to be inefficient:[17]

"In addition, the air is fed into the muffle from the top and then flows down along the side walls absorbing heat. The muffles are thus cooled on the inside. The combustion gases are made to flow directly downward, and the important initial heating-up of the muffle does not occur. [...] Also in the case of oven-types I and II, feeding air from the top turns out to be counterproductive, as the duration of combustion is extended [from one hour] to 1 1/2 hours, and the oven has to be reheated briefly after each incineration."

To underpin his arguments, Pressac refers us to Prüfer, the designer of the triple-muffle and the eight-muffle furnaces of Birkenau, but his efforts go up in smoke and the French researcher entangles himself in a web of contradictions. In his second book he had, in fact, asserted that the capacity of crematoria II/III at Birkenau had amounted to 1,000 corpses per 24 hours.[18] If we compare this to Prüfer's statements under interrogation on 5 March 1946,[19] as quoted by Pressac, we find:



"Question: How many corpses could be burnt in one of the Auschwitz crematoria in one hour?

Answer: in a crematorium of five ovens or fifteen muffles, it was possible to burn 15 corpses per hour."


Hence, a single corpse could be incinerated in each muffle of the five triple-muffle ovens, or theoretically 360 corpses in 24 hours.

Let us recapitulate: when the Birkenau ovens were in operation, the chimneys of the crematoria smoked continuously. This could not be avoided, because

- the triple-muffle and eight-muffle furnaces did not have any recuperators for preheating the combustion air;

- in the triple-muffle furnaces, the air blowers could not be controlled individually for each muffle;

- the cold air fed into the muffles from above cooled down the walls of the muffles and caused the temperature to drop;

- a single damper controlled the combustion in the three muffles;

- in the eight-muffle types, a single damper controlled the combustion in four muffles

Moreover, the top of the chimney of crematorium II was black with soot.

But why did Pressac ignore even an obvious proof in the form of a photograph? The answer is simple: he could not allow the chimneys of the Birkenau crematoria to smoke, because the aerial photographs known to him (which show no smoke coming from the chimneys) were taken at a time when mass gassings and incinerations were supposed to have taken place and thus the crematoria could not, under any circumstances, have been inactive.

This question is to be investigated in a further article.

End of article.


So if I have my chronology correct here.

Hannover, in 2003 sides with that one Prufer statement about fine tuing as I call it in this thread thus explaining why there is a lack of photos with flames.
Interrogated by SMERSCH / Topf engineers, Kurt Prufer, etc.

Then in 2004 you seemed to change your mind when you posted the Mattogno article in full and posted nothing about contradicting Mattogno on the smoke issue.
New!! Flames & Smoke from Chimneys of Auschwitz-Birkenau

Now in 2014 a decade later you have reverted back to your 2003 stance because of what Pressace quoted Prufer as saying. And you are disagreeing with mattogno's attack on Pressac now because you have had more time to examine photos and think about how many bodies were being burned at the time of the ariel photos? What do you think of Mattogno's claim that Pressac/Prufer under Soviet interrogation are to be disregarded because the available German literature indicates there was no way to inject heat energy into those ovens to reduce smoke emissions?

"the Topf ovens at Auschwitz did not possess any device for preheating the combustion air"


Also, about those three pictures, Hannover. Those seem like they were taken on arrival into the camp, or upon liberation by the allies? can you tell me which and give the source for those photos? They may have a date on them. I ask because I personally find it hard to believe the ovens would already be going when the prisoners are just coming in, or when they are being liberated by the allies. And if neither is correct, then we need to know the dates and sources of those photos to draw any conclusion from those photos ALONE about the ovens.
Last edited by Werd on Sat Feb 22, 2014 5:43 pm, edited 3 times in total.

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 5:06 pm)

I addressed the points, you not, you repeat yourself and ignore my points. What is acc. to Hannover absurd has no relevance to what is backed up by science, technical data and photos of heavy soot on the chimneys. There are 4 aerial photos showing smoking yard of crematorium V with no smoke coming from crematoria and three photos without smoking yard. This shows that at the time of open air burning crematoria were obviously not active and was needed to burn in open air precisely because crematoria could not have been used for some reason, if they could have been used, no reason to burn in open, simple.

Hannover wrote:Is that why crematories most everywhere do not smoke unless there is a problem? Is that why Prufer said he tooks steps against the smoke?


As evidenced, crematoria smoked regularly as is even logical since there would have been no need to combat this phenomena if they did not emit smoke. Not a complicated logic.

Hannover wrote:No unanswered parts, Bob, i have answered you loud and clear, yu just do not like it.


Not true, Hannover did not show any evidence, study or arguments in support of his assertion that crematoria did not smoke during operation. If yes, please quote it again. Here again:

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

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.


Hannover wrote:more pictures of Auschwitz where the chimneys are not smoking:


Did Hannover upgraded his assertion to even higher level claiming that even chimneys of ordinary barracks were magical and did not emit smoke or he simply forgot to notice that they are not active obviously because of warm weather?

Want to see picture of chimney of my barrack? There is no smoke now. And why? Because I am not using my boiler dear Hannover and when active, there is always a smoke. Are you suggesting I am a liar or you are finally able to understand that no combustion = no smoke and photo of not active chimney = irrelevant photo?

Hannover wrote:Yes I did post the OP here:
New!! Flames & Smoke from Chimneys of Auschwitz-Birkenau
I stand by it on the fire issue, have come to disagree about the smoke.


Can Hannover kindly quote his alleged disagreement with the article he himself posted? In the meantime, here is Hannover´s agreement with the article:

Hannover wrote:Here's a nice piece of work from Carlo Mattogno on the 'flames & smoke' from the Auschwitz-Birkenau crematorium chimneys we have heard about. There have been past debates about this, but this article seems conclusive.
The more technically minded here will certainly appreciate this work, comments invited.
Thanks to http://www.vho.org

Once again Revisionist research carries the day.


Edit: I forgot this:

Hannover wrote:Given the numbers cremated, your 'no cremations were happening when countless photos were taken' is statistically absurd, Bob.


Please, provide me with numbers of cremated on the days when the photos were taken, you seem to have posses documents which nobody know.
Last edited by Bob on Sat Feb 22, 2014 5:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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 5:10 pm)

Bob much like you should give dates and times about hannover's statements like I have above, Hannover should be welcoming with dates from those photos for reasons I illustrated. Not trying to seem like a jerk, but in my view, both of you guys have just a little more to add.

There are 4 aerial photos showing smoking yard of crematorium V with no smoke coming from crematoria and three photos without smoking yard. This shows that at the time of open air burning crematoria were obviously not active and was needed to burn in open air precisely because crematoria could not have been used for some reason, if they could have been used, no reason to burn in open, simple.

It shows that smoke was photographable. But given what Pressac quoted, and Hannover seems to stand by, while Mattogno does not, that is the real issue. The engineering that was done on the ovens themselves, Bob. All of us have to stick to that at the very least in my view. Pressac versus Mattogno. I.E. Prufer's statement.

Edit:
And to my changed post above, we can see in the vho.org article, Pressace appears to be relying on tesimony from Prufer under Soviet interrogation whereas Mattogno has claimed that the diagrams show there was no possible way to inject further energy into the ovens to cut down on the smoke emission. If all we have to go on is a witness statement and we are fine with that, does that not make us like those who believe the holocaust survivors' statements just because they say so?

Edit 2:
Now that I think about it, did Prufer even both to go into detail about how this was allegedly done? I am betting no, since mattogno apparently had to pour over the German literature himself to see if it was even possible.
Last edited by Werd on Sat Feb 22, 2014 5:33 pm, edited 2 times in total.

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 5:19 pm)

Dates and times of someone´s comment are in the provided sources, read them, simple. There is no Pressac versus Mattogno, Bob vs. Hannover etc, please, do not make the issues simple in this way. Thanks.

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 6:55 pm)

A lot of verbiage since I was here last, but here goes:

Yes, I posted in favor of Mattogno's work on fire & smoke, to me the fire issue was more important than smoke. Since then I have been searched for photos of the alleged smoking chimneys, heretofore there are none. Neither Bob or Werd can show a single one. Werd seems to have relaxed and become more pragmatic. Bob is defiant, perhaps stubborn is better word. Regardless, he cannot show me a single such photo. IMO, given the massive number of photos taken, given the large numbers of cremations that necessarily occurred at Auschwitz, that's all that matters. Claiming that smoke was continuous but failing to provide visual proof is a big time problem for the smoking chimneys claim. It is really that simple. When I see evidence that something did not occur as alleged, I will change my position in a heartbeat. I feel that is simply being honest.

The recent photos I posted were from the Auschwitz Album, they are not 'liberation' photos. Bob seems to think they all 3 were not of cremation chimneys, if true, I will accept that criticism, IF true. No big deal there are plenty of others.
I.E.:
Here is what appears to be a cremation chimney just peaking out, note the explained soot, but no smoke:
Image
and to the left the big fat one is, I assume, a crematory chimney:
Image
and, to the left:
Image
and see the chimney on right, explained soot, no smoke:
Image

Look around there's certainly more. next ...

Again, I already explained the soot canard.

Bob thinks that Prufer's stated effort to alleviate smoke means that the smoke simply continued unabated. His logic problem, not mine. Still no photos of smoking chimneys, so it appears that Prufer's efforts were rather successful.

Bob asks:
Please, provide me with numbers of cremated on the days when the photos were taken, you seem to have posses documents which nobody know.
I have no such data, but is Bob saying that disease and the resultant death was not prevalent at the times of the endless photos?

Show me photos of smoking chimneys and I will leave this debate, no one can and that is my point.

The tide is turning.

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

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 7:15 pm)

Rolling along, more non-smoking crematory chimneys:
Image
and:
Image
and:
Image
and:
Image

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 11:23 pm)

Hannover wrote:Yes, I posted in favor of Mattogno's work on fire & smoke, to me the fire issue was more important than smoke. Since then I have been searched for photos of the alleged smoking chimneys, heretofore there are none.


You have been searching for photos to see there are none? Mattogno in the very same article pointed out that photos known to exterminationist expert Pressac do not show smoke, thus this explanation does not make sense, you knew it if you read that article. I am still waiting why Hannover agreed with article which he allegedly did not consider correct and where we can see his alleged disagreement prior to this thread, i still do not see any quote.

Hannover wrote:Regardless, he cannot show me a single such photo. Claiming that smoke was continuous but failing to provide visual proof is a big time problem for the smoking chimneys claim.


How many times do I need to repeat that there is no such photo because crematoria were not active thus logically I cannot show photo of smoking chimney? Yes, smoke was continuous, but only when the crematoria were ACTIVE.

Hannover wrote:I have no such data


Hannover has no data, thanks, that was all what I asked for, yet he claimed: "Given the numbers cremated, your 'no cremations were happening when countless photos were taken' is statistically absurd, Bob." So how Hannover knows what is or isn´t statistically absurd when he has no such data?

Hannover wrote:Bob seems to think they all 3 were not of cremation chimneys, if true, I will accept that criticism, IF true.


Wait a minute please, you were claiming that all 3 photos are showing chimneys of crematoria? Judging from the analysis below, the answer is obviously yes.

Hannover wrote:Here is what appears to be a cremation chimney just peaking out, note the explained soot, but no smoke:
Image


This is the picture of barrack in front of delousing block BW5b shown behind it, crematoria are completely out of the shot of course. Here a better angle to see where is the closest Crematorium no. II, far in the background and in the case of Hannover´s photo - far on the right side out of the shot. In addition, a picture from theblackrabbitofinlé.

Hannover wrote:and to the left the big fat one is, I assume, a crematory chimney:
Image
and, to the left:
Image


Pictures with Krematorium III obviously taken in the course of seconds or minutes. If these photos, like others of the same kind from Auschwitz Album were taken in the similar period on May 26, 1944 if we follow Auschwitz Album is not known, maybe yes, maybe not.

Hannover wrote:and see the chimney on right, explained soot, no smoke:
Image


Like previously, this is again a kitchen. In this case of Hungarian women´s camp (hence probably BIIc) with its three chimneys as commented on page 125 of Auschwitz Album. On the page 129 of Auschwitz Album, one can see the area from better angle and one can see that the chimney on the right is just another kitchen with three chimneys. I will not scan the image, because here is the same image from Charles Traynor albeit in worse quality and crematoria are out of shot again behind the photographer:
Image

Needless to say, that crematoria chimneys are known for being of the specific shape and dimnsions, i.e wider at the bottom and narrower at the top, so if you can remember this fact, you can hardly mistaken them with other chimneys.

Hannover wrote:Rolling along, more non-smoking crematory chimneys:
Image
Image
Image


These pictures are in fact only one picture of crematorium III photographed at the time of its handing over to the camp administration, thus irrelevant. Why Hannover posted the same picture for three times is not known.

Hannover wrote:Image


Crematorium IV photographed in mid-April 1943 just after some three weeks of operation and with heavy soot layer at the top of the chimneys, thanks for showing that chimney must have been really smoking continuously to accomplish this, I myself used this photo to evidence it.

When i am finished with another analysis of your comment, can you please stop posting images about which you have little knowledge and when agreed that no photo of smoking chimney exists? Thus no point to keep posting known photos to show something what is probably known to all.

Here is what Hannover missed and i am still waiting:

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

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.

Did Hannover upgraded his assertion to even higher level claiming that even chimneys of ordinary barracks were magical and did not emit smoke or he simply forgot to notice that they are not active obviously because of warm weather?

Want to see picture of chimney of my barrack? There is no smoke now. And why? Because I am not using my boiler dear Hannover and when active, there is always a smoke. Are you suggesting I am a liar or you are finally able to understand that no combustion = no smoke and photo of not active chimney = irrelevant photo?

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 (Sun Feb 23, 2014 12:32 am)

Come on, Bob, you're spinning your wheels.
Bob:
You have been searching for photos to see there are none? Mattogno in the very same article pointed out that photos known to exterminationist expert Pressac do not show smoke
Exactly, thank you.

Bob:
How many times do I need to repeat that there is no such photo because crematoria were not active thus logically I cannot show photo of smoking chimney? Yes, smoke was continuous, but only when the crematoria were ACTIVE.
Again, statisically absurd given your "continuous" claim. Show me photos.

Bob:
Hannover has no data, thanks, that was all what I asked for, yet he claimed: "Given the numbers cremated, your 'no cremations were happening when countless photos were taken' is statistically absurd, Bob." So how Hannover knows what is or isn´t statistically absurd when he has no such data?
Excuse me. Again, please read my posts. Tens of thousands of cremations with raging epidemics and you cannot show one smoking chimney. Perhaps too direct for you, but a fact, statistically absurd indeed. I note that you have not shown me data which demonstrates that there were no cremations at the time of any of the ever growing non-smoke photos.

Bob:
Wait a minute please, you were claiming that all 3 photos are showing chimneys of crematoria? Judging from the analysis below, the answer is obviously yes.
You are confusing the pictures. I can accept that those were not crematory chimneys, but the others, well gotcha'.

Bob:
This is the picture of barrack in front of delousing block BW5b shown behind it, crematoria are completely out of the shot of course
No it's not, the critical top of the chimney, which is where smoke should be coming out, show the usual lack of smoke.

Thanks for this one, no smoke per usual.
Image

Bob:
Pictures with Krematorium III obviously taken in the course of seconds or minutes. If these photos, like others of the same kind from Auschwitz Album were taken in the similar period on May 26, 1944 if we follow Auschwitz Album is not known, maybe yes, maybe not.
Fact remains, still no smoke. IF, MAYBE as in woulda' coulda', shoulda'. We're witnessing ever decreasing credibility for your undemonstrated position as the 'no smoke photos' pile up.

Bob:
These pictures are in fact only one picture of crematorium III photographed at the time of its handing over to the camp administration, thus irrelevant. Why Hannover posted the same picture for three times is not known.
Yes there is two of the same, so what? It merely emphasizes the lack of smoke. Let's label it 'for dramatic purposes" Again, no smoke.
"... at the time of its handing over to the camp administration, thus irrelevant ..." Yes, thank you. Note crematory workers, but no smoke ... again. According to you a direly needed crematory facility was curiously not in use 'after it was handed over'. I believe you are running out of excuses.

Bob:
Crematorium IV photographed in mid-April 1943 just after some three weeks of operation and with heavy soot layer at the top of the chimneys, thanks for showing that chimney must have been really smoking continuously to accomplish this, I myself used this photo to evidence it.
When i am finished with another analysis of your comment, can you please stop posting images about which you have little knowledge and when agreed that no photo of smoking chimney exists? Thus no point to keep posting known photos to show something what is probably known to all.
More wishing on your part. In fact I'll look for more & more. You position is not manageable as the examples keep getting bigger & bigger.

Oh yawn, Bob, I have repeatedly posted my argument, but it's just that you cannot refute it and hope to wish it away. Frustrating for you I would imagine. I have answered your soot canard. But you ignore it. Your problem, not good form either.

And cleary your repetitve, yet answered questions aren't good faith debating. But that appears all that you have left. A liar? Perhaps not. Highly frustrated by your inability to show me a single smoking chimney? Quite.

Still waiting for those smoking chimneys, Bob.

The tide is turning.

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

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 (Sun Feb 23, 2014 12:43 am)

This thread has more than run it's course, is burned out, and now locked. I believe all parties have made their point/s.
M1
Only lies need to be shielded from debate, truth welcomes it.


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] and 1 guest