More thoughts on the aerial photos of Auschwitz / Hebden

[Hebden]

A person who shall remain nameless has been trying to persuade us that the dots in question simply represent trees within the Kanada compound. Despite our initial scepticism that trees would have been left in the area during the construction phase, he has produced two interesting photos which apparently support his contention:

[Sailor]

Naw.

If the referenced dots are those three or four squares which you mentioned to Irving, I would question the answer of the unnamed person.

I have never seen a tree with such sharp well defined edges. The lines are clearly the edges of a man made object. Also they appear to be in line with the building structures, parallel and at right angle. What tree with all its twigs and branches would grow like that?

fge

[Hebden]

Naw.

If the referenced dots are those three or four squares which you mentioned to Irving, I would question the answer of the unnamed person.

I have never seen a tree with such sharp well defined edges. The lines are clearly the edges of a man made object. Also they appear to be in line with the building structures, parallel and at right angle. What tree with all its twigs and branches would grow like that?

fge

We have been comparing the markings (we think 3, not 4) with trees elsewhere on the photos and to these untrained eyes they do appear to be somewhat different in nature and size. The obvious challenge though is, what else can the markings be? We note they're also present on the Luftwaffe photo of July 9 and the June 26 photo.

We can't agree with you that the markings possess sharp well defined edges. We necessarily reject Mr. Irving's suggestion they may have been bomb craters on the simple basis that no bombing took place over Auschwitz until August and stray bombs only hit Birkenau during the September 13th mission.

Our nameless correspondent has posited the imaginative hypothesis that the trees were deciduous, which means that in the May photo they would apear less prominent than in the August one, and they would apparently be absent from the December/January ones. The fact that the markings seemingly overlap the warehouse buildings could be explained by the width of the higher branches.

As to why the trees would have remained in the Kanada sector, four reasons/suggestions were put forward:

1) to help counter the high water table;
2) the warehouses were prefabricated structures with minimal foundations negating the problem posed by tree roots;
3) security would be less of an issue compared with prisoner barracks;
4) aesthetic pleasure - Germans like trees!

Have a look again at this photo which appeared in Mr. Pressac's big book
(albeit the photo has been slightly cropped here):



Our correspondent made an attempt at identifying the location from where this photo was taken. He suggests the warehouse in the photo is the fourth one along from the left in the top row of the Kanada compound (looking northwards, ie. with K IV and V to the top and KII and III to the south). This would mean the photo would be taken between the fourth and fifth warehouses. An important point is the assertion that one of the chimneys of KIV is visible in the background between two of the trees.

It's very interesting but our problem is that the pattern of the trees does not quite fit the pattern of the aerial photo. That said, we haven't yet been able to determine a more likely spot for the photo. We are assuming that the photo was indeed shot inside Kanada.

We humbly suggest the Moderator return to us the right to post here without the need for approval. We will not submit to that.

[Moderator]

Agreed then, your posts will not be spam checked, unless the need arises.

- Moderator

[Sailor]

We can't agree with you that the markings possess sharp well defined edges.

Are we talking about the same marks?
Mine are located in "Kanada" in the area of the top row of barracks, second and third barrack from the left.
I looked at them again, enlarged as much as possible. Sorry. Mine have very straight edges are square and are in line with the buildings.

While it is true that they appear on May 31, 1944 somewhat paler, but so does the whole picture itself.

Interesting is the blackness of these squares. They literally stand out in the picture.

Let us say, that we agree to not agree on this. It is not that important anyway.

Our correspondent made an attempt at identifying the location from where this photo was taken. He suggests the warehouse in the photo is the fourth one along from the left in the top row of the Kanada compound (looking northwards, ie. with K IV and V to the top and KII and III to the south). This would mean the photo would be taken between the fourth and fifth warehouses. An important point is the assertion that one of the chimneys of KIV is visible in the background between two of the trees.

Your correspondent is a sharp observer. He may be correct about the location of the camera man who took the picture. But why would someone take a picture like this? Are there others like this one?

I noticed that the working women don't wear prison garbs, don't have their hair cut off, and don't look particularly undernourished.

What I am interested in is to know, what happened to the Zyklon-B introduction chutes on morgue 1, Krema II. I don't find them on the new picture.
But of course the resolution of the picture itself is not really sufficient to make out these details with certainty.

fge

[Hebden]

What I am interested in is to know, what happened to the Zyklon-B introduction chutes on morgue 1, Krema II. I don't find them on the new picture.
But of course the resolution of the picture itself is not really sufficient to make out these details with certainty.

fge

Mr. Irving was also unable to make out inlet hatches on KII, but we pointed out to him that markings of some sort are apparent given sufficient magnification. Not four distinct marks as with the August 25 photo, but something nonetheless. The corresponding morgue of KIII, however, does not show anything of similar definition.

Regarding the presence of the inlets, have a look at the excerpted testimony of Mr. Jerzy Bielski and perhaps we'll discuss it tomorrow:

http://www.mazal.org/archive/nmt/05/NMT05-T0650.htm

[Sailor]

Regarding the presence of the inlets, have a look at the excerpted testimony of Mr. Jerzy Bielski and perhaps we'll discuss it tomorrow:

http://www.mazal.org/archive/nmt/05/NMT05-T0650.htm

The witness Herr BIELSKI is a liar and lawyer DR. SEIDL (counsel for defendant Pohl, who was fighting for dear life) is an incompetent defense attorney.

fge

[comrade seinfeld]

In the original post in this thread by Hannover he compared the new aerial photo of Auschwitz-Birkenau with another old one which is popular with the exterminationists. However, it is quite clear that the smoke is coming from what were the alleged gas chambers 4 and 5 (or what has been called elsewhere in a similar thread as Crema 5, so that it is really unlikely to be something that is not related to this particular crematorium.

Thus it is quite likely that it is smoke coming from Crema 5 in the normal course of its operation for whatever purpose. The thing is, however, that I have always read in 'Holocaust' revisionist forums that smoke is not generated by the normal course of operation of a crematorium, which might have been a mistaken perception on my part. However, as is demonstrated by the new RAF photo apparently smoke is generated by the normal operation of the crematorium, which, of course, in no way necessarily implies that there had been homicidal gassing in hand. Moreover, the point had been made in this forum concerning this new photo that the smoke is a white colour, and not the black colour that we would expect from burning bodies in an open air cremation, so that apparently we can presume that the smoke generated by the Auschwitz crematorians would be white smoke, and perhaps it is the case today that modern day crematorians do not generate any smoke, but it is necessary to have a chimmey in order for the gaseous heat to escape.

Thus it is quite clear that the presence of white smoke coming from Crema 5 is no way implies that there was homicidal gassing taking place. And that the crematorium was being used for what it was there to do, i.e., deal with the inevitable deaths that would take place in a concentration camp for whatever reason in order to prevent disease. If it was indeed an open air cremation of some type then it would be black smoke probably, but as we can see it is white smoke, so that the Germans were not forced to resort to open-air cremation for whatever reason.

Of course, in this sort of situation the revisionists just can't win. When I first heard about the release on the Net of these RAF aerial war photos it was on the Newshour program on the BBC World Service, so I suppose it was inevitable that there would be discussion by those concerned (i.e., the presenter interviewing someone from the body releasing the photos of how the aerial photos of Auschwitz-Birkenau show rising smoke from open air cremations, as the photos were said to be taken at a time when the crematoriums were broken down through overuse due to all the homicidal gassings. But is it not the case that, as can be shown by a comparasion of the two photos in Hannover's original post that the smoke is actually coming from Crema 5 (or perhaps Crema 4 -- or what are depicted as the alleged homicidal gas chambers 4 and 5!), and that it is all quite normal, assuming it is the case, of course, that these old-fashioned crematoriums did generate white smoke?

[Hebden]

In the original post in this thread by Hannover he compared the new aerial photo of Auschwitz-Birkenau with another old one which is popular with the exterminationists. However, it is quite clear that the smoke is coming from what were the alleged gas chambers 4 and 5 (or what has been called elsewhere in a similar thread as Crema 5, so that it is really unlikely to be something that is not related to this particular crematorium.

That smoke is not coming from Krema V can be confirmed by this magnified version of the new photo: http://www.evidenceincamera.co.uk/image ... /conc1.htm

[comrade seinfeld]

According to Hannover:

That smoke is not coming from Krema V can be confirmed by this magnified version of the new photo: http://www.evidenceincamera.co.uk/image ... /conc1.htm

I don't want to argue with you about it, Hannover, but in accordance with your photo reference the source of the smoke does appear to be at least very close to either Krema 4 or 5. If it is not coming from one of the crematoriums, therefore, it must be some sort of open-air cremation, which is quite likely in accordance with the official blurb that came with the photo alleging that the official Kremas had broken down, and that it was necessary to conduct open-air pyres. If it was just a questin

[comrade seinfeld]

I wasn't able to finish my last post as I using a public library computer, and someone was booked for the one I was using.

As I was saying if it was just a question of burning rubbish it would be significant therefore that they were doing it close to the Kremas, as it would be probable that they would have used the same site to conduct open-air cremations in the past. Therefore, Hannover, you and others should be sure that the smoke is not coming from the Kremas, since if it was necessary to resort to open-air cremations, would that not at least be circumstantial evidence for the exterminationist perspective?

Also there is the question of what colour is the smoke since others in this forum have been adamant that if it was coming from an open-air cremation then it would have been black smoke. However, as we can see, at least at the base of the fire, there is clearly white smoke, although as the smoke rises into the air it appears to blacken at the top -- although perhaps that is how the smoke from large fires behaves.

Anyway I think that those who are revisionists should treat this matter very seriously, since, at least as it appears to me, there is some circumstantial evidence in favour of the exterminationist perspective. Therefore it is necessary for revisionists to explain why this photo with the rising smoke does not contradict the revisionist perspective.

I think that I have made a mistake, however, and have attributed to Hannover what should have been attributed to Hebden, which is perhaps caused by having to worry about having to do this post in a hurry before someone claims to have booked this computer.

[Hannover]

The assertion that the photo with smoke creates problems for Revisionists is incorrect.

- There is legitimate concern that the smoke was added to the photo in a flimsy attempt to create 'evidence', an easy thing to do. In none of the many other photos do we see such smoke plumes as we should if the allegation that 500,000 Jews were cremated in these open air pits was true. see: http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=868

- No physical evidence for such massive pits has ever been found, and the depth and size of these pits is impossible as alleged due to the groundwater at Auschwitz, which very close to the surface....the story is a lie.

- Think of the chaos that would have been created by such massive outdoor cremations right next to a structure which is absurdly said to have been a gas chamber that was in heavy use. The people that were allegedly being herded into these chambers could have easily seen such on going cremations and would have violently resisted.

- Notice there is no line of 'victims' entering the alleged gas chamber either. The story says the chambers were running non-stop.

- Notice there is no massive piles of fuel that would have been necessary.

- Notice there are no piles of bodies awaiting cremation as the laughable story states.

- Notice there are no groups of workers enaged in this alleged cremation process. No soldiers either.

Hannover