Aerial Reconnaissance Photographs and Zyklon Insertion Holes

[HansHill]

Nessie is still struggling with the concept of arguing from incredulity, you love to see it.

Fireofice, yes boxes or containers of some sort. My personal opinion is that they were tar buckets / drums from when the roof was tarred

[Archie]

Check out Van Pelt's mock-ups of the "Kula columns." The top, protruding part is quite small.

[Nessie]

Nessie, how many can you count to?

How many are on the roof during construction?

Where are they placed? In a row, or offset?

How many are in that air photo?

How are they placed? In a row, or offset?

The box covers in the train photo do not equate to the marks in the aerial photos. We do not know why. You use that uncertainty to conclude, it is all lies, there was no gas chamber.

Then, why present the unrelated photographs together as evidence when they clearly are not related?

That's an odd choice Nessie.

How are the photos unrelated?

[Nessie]

Nessie is still struggling with the concept of arguing from incredulity, you love to see it.

....

https://effectiviology.com/argument-from-incredulity/

"The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone concludes that since they can’t believe something is true, then it must be false"

You clearly cannot believe there were columns inside the Liechenkeller and holes in the roof to pour Zyklon B into those columns. You and others have your reasons for not believing, but they are arguments, not evidence.

"Odd, ain't it?". "Strong indications the extant holes were cut away after the war". "It should be noted that not all the air photos show these "holes". "...let me point out one more absurdity...".

What you do not have is contemporaneous evidence pertinent to the Kremas in 1943-4, when there is evidence of holes in the roof, that prove there were no such holes. You do not have any witness, or a no clear photo that shows a roof with no hole in it, both of which would corroborate to prove no hole. You need that as a minimum, but then all you are doing is countering the corroborating evidence, of multiple witnesses, admittedly unclear photos and circumstantial evidence, that there were holes. The unclear presence of holes in the damaged roof now, on its own, is not necessarily contemporaneous evidence, as they need to be dated to 1943-4, which the witness, photographic and circumstantial evidence is.

If you believed something because of evidence happened and I countered you by arguing it is odd, there are indications, evidence is not clear and I think your belief is absurd, would you ditch the evidence and change your mind?

[Stubble]

The box covers in the train photo do not equate to the marks in the aerial photos. We do not know why. You use that uncertainty to conclude, it is all lies, there was no gas chamber.

Then, why present the unrelated photographs together as evidence when they clearly are not related?

That's an odd choice Nessie.

How are the photos unrelated?

You presented them, together, as proof of homicidal gassings. You admit they are not the same. I ask you why you presented them together. You say they are the same.

Such is the 'debate'. You have traversed the circle. Congratulations.

[Nessie]

Then, why present the unrelated photographs together as evidence when they clearly are not related?

That's an odd choice Nessie.

How are the photos unrelated?

You presented them, together, as proof of homicidal gassings. You admit they are not the same. I ask you why you presented them together. You say they are the same.

Such is the 'debate'. You have traversed the circle. Congratulations.

I presented two photographs that are evidence of covers on the roof of the Kremas, which corroborate other evidence of covers on the roof, which are consistent with the evidence of holes in the roof.

[DavidM]

Hello Nessie,
My belief is based on having been through one hole in the roof of the Leichkeller One of Krema II and into the morgue.

A picture of the underside of the roof can be seen at Pressac's technique
https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... 0354.shtml

I went into the morgue through the hole Pressac refers to as,
"The opening allowing access to the space below the part of the collapsed roof supported by the second pillar is at the far end, eastern side, where a hump can be seen."

The construction of the morgue roof is poured-in-place concrete on a wooden frame, covered by a layer of
asphalt felt, covered by a thin cap of poured concrete. The imprint of the wooden framing clearly showed and
would have shown any modification to the ceiling.

It is obvious to me that the holes in the roof were crudely chipped through the roof to gain access to the
morgue room. The rebar in the P-IN- Place concrete had been cut on one side and bent down into the room.
There is no sign of any connections holding a "wire column" on the roof or in the ceiling.
However the fragile wooden slats that held the wooden ventilation system were visible.
There were no shower heads dummy or otherwise.

[Nessie]

Hello Nessie,
My belief is based on having been through one hole in the roof of the Leichkeller One of Krema II and into the morgue.

A picture of the underside of the roof can be seen at Pressac's technique
https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... 0354.shtml

I went into the morgue through the hole Pressac refers to as,
"The opening allowing access to the space below the part of the collapsed roof supported by the second pillar is at the far end, eastern side, where a hump can be seen."

The construction of the morgue roof is poured-in-place concrete on a wooden frame, covered by a layer of
asphalt felt, covered by a thin cap of poured concrete. The imprint of the wooden framing clearly showed and
would have shown any modification to the ceiling.

It is obvious to me that the holes in the roof were crudely chipped through the roof to gain access to the
morgue room. The rebar in the P-IN- Place concrete had been cut on one side and bent down into the room.
There is no sign of any connections holding a "wire column" on the roof or in the ceiling.
However the fragile wooden slats that held the wooden ventilation system were visible.
There were no shower heads dummy or otherwise.

https://www.auschwitz.org/en/museum/new ... u-,81.html

" The Museum's Collections Department has added several valuable historical exhibits over the last few days. They were discovered in the course of preservation work at the ruins of gas chambers and crematoria II and III at the Auschwitz II-Birkenau site.
More than a dozen objects discovered by preservation specialists carrying out work to drain and waterproof the ruins of the gas chambers and crematoria include covers for the inlets of the gas chamber ventilation shafts, a shower head, and the absorption tip of a gas mask."

Physical evidence that further corroborates the evidence the Krema had a gas chamber than was made to look like a shower.

[HansHill]

Physical evidence that further corroborates the evidence the Krema had a gas chamber than was made to look like a shower.

We have ample evidence that the showers were intended to be real showers, stop lying to this gentleman.

From Mattogno, via Rudolf:

Nor is there any proof that the “showers” mentioned in the document were
“false,” as stated by Pressac. In actual fact, the Central Construction Office
temporarily considered expanding the Birkenau crematoria into hygiene cen-
ters equipped with disinfestation installations, inmate showers and undressing
rooms, but nevertheless later drastically downsized these plans. Carlo Mat-
togno has produced extensive documentation in support of this argument,
which I will summarize here (Mattogno 2000b, 2015a, pp. 148-157):

At the behest of the garrison physician, a thoroughgoing program was
launched at Birkenau in early May 1943 with the official designation “Special
measures for the improvement of the hygienic installations.” The official order
for this arrived at Birkenau on May 14, 1943, yet measure for the urgently
needed improvement of the camp’s hygienic conditions were evidently taken
already prior to the issuance of that order.

For instance, in an “itemization” by the Topf Company dated 13 April,
1943 concerning requested metals to be used in the construction of certain
machinery for Crematorium II at Auschwitz, the following item appears:
“2 Topf disinfestation furnaces for Crema II in the PoW Camp Auschwitz.”
On May 13, 1943, the head of the Auschwitz Central Construction Office,
Karl Bischoff, drew up a “Report on the work scheduled for immediate action
program at PoW camp Auschwitz,” with which the civilian employee Jährling
was charged with installing the “the showers in the undressing room of Crem-
atorium III.”
On May 15, Bischoff sent the following “urgent telegram” to the Topf
Company:

“On Monday bring the overdue warm water project for approximately 100
showers. Installation of water heater or boiler in the still-under-construction
trash incinerator in Crematorium III or flue for the purpose of utilizing the
high temperature of the emissions.”

On June 5, 1942, Topf sent Drawing D60446 to the Central Construction Of-
fice “regarding the installation of the boilers in the trash incinerator.” This
project involved the installations intended for Crematorium II.

[Nessie]

Physical evidence that further corroborates the evidence the Krema had a gas chamber than was made to look like a shower.

We have ample evidence that the showers were intended to be real showers, stop lying to this gentleman.

From Mattogno, via Rudolf:

Nor is there any proof that the “showers” mentioned in the document were
“false,” as stated by Pressac. In actual fact, the Central Construction Office
temporarily considered expanding the Birkenau crematoria into hygiene cen-
ters equipped with disinfestation installations, inmate showers and undressing
rooms, but nevertheless later drastically downsized these plans. Carlo Mat-
togno has produced extensive documentation in support of this argument,
which I will summarize here (Mattogno 2000b, 2015a, pp. 148-157):

At the behest of the garrison physician, a thoroughgoing program was
launched at Birkenau in early May 1943 with the official designation “Special
measures for the improvement of the hygienic installations.” The official order
for this arrived at Birkenau on May 14, 1943, yet measure for the urgently
needed improvement of the camp’s hygienic conditions were evidently taken
already prior to the issuance of that order.

For instance, in an “itemization” by the Topf Company dated 13 April,
1943 concerning requested metals to be used in the construction of certain
machinery for Crematorium II at Auschwitz, the following item appears:
“2 Topf disinfestation furnaces for Crema II in the PoW Camp Auschwitz.”
On May 13, 1943, the head of the Auschwitz Central Construction Office,
Karl Bischoff, drew up a “Report on the work scheduled for immediate action
program at PoW camp Auschwitz,” with which the civilian employee Jährling
was charged with installing the “the showers in the undressing room of Crem-
atorium III.”
On May 15, Bischoff sent the following “urgent telegram” to the Topf
Company:

“On Monday bring the overdue warm water project for approximately 100
showers. Installation of water heater or boiler in the still-under-construction
trash incinerator in Crematorium III or flue for the purpose of utilizing the
high temperature of the emissions.”

On June 5, 1942, Topf sent Drawing D60446 to the Central Construction Of-
fice “regarding the installation of the boilers in the trash incinerator.” This
project involved the installations intended for Crematorium II.

I thought the Kremas were supposed to be corpse stores, or is it bomb shelters, or delousing chambers? I cannot keep up with all the contradictory revisionist hypothesis about the usage of the Kremas.

The problem with the revisionist investigation, is that it cannot prove actual usage or produce an evidenced chronology for each Krema and it has to ignore 100% of the witness and other evidence, that they were used for gassings. The standard of revisionist investigation is very poor, caused by their lack of training and inexperience in conducting such investigations.

[TlsMS93]

Physical evidence that further corroborates the evidence the Krema had a gas chamber than was made to look like a shower.

We have ample evidence that the showers were intended to be real showers, stop lying to this gentleman.

From Mattogno, via Rudolf:

Nor is there any proof that the “showers” mentioned in the document were
“false,” as stated by Pressac. In actual fact, the Central Construction Office
temporarily considered expanding the Birkenau crematoria into hygiene cen-
ters equipped with disinfestation installations, inmate showers and undressing
rooms, but nevertheless later drastically downsized these plans. Carlo Mat-
togno has produced extensive documentation in support of this argument,
which I will summarize here (Mattogno 2000b, 2015a, pp. 148-157):

At the behest of the garrison physician, a thoroughgoing program was
launched at Birkenau in early May 1943 with the official designation “Special
measures for the improvement of the hygienic installations.” The official order
for this arrived at Birkenau on May 14, 1943, yet measure for the urgently
needed improvement of the camp’s hygienic conditions were evidently taken
already prior to the issuance of that order.

For instance, in an “itemization” by the Topf Company dated 13 April,
1943 concerning requested metals to be used in the construction of certain
machinery for Crematorium II at Auschwitz, the following item appears:
“2 Topf disinfestation furnaces for Crema II in the PoW Camp Auschwitz.”
On May 13, 1943, the head of the Auschwitz Central Construction Office,
Karl Bischoff, drew up a “Report on the work scheduled for immediate action
program at PoW camp Auschwitz,” with which the civilian employee Jährling
was charged with installing the “the showers in the undressing room of Crem-
atorium III.”
On May 15, Bischoff sent the following “urgent telegram” to the Topf
Company:

“On Monday bring the overdue warm water project for approximately 100
showers. Installation of water heater or boiler in the still-under-construction
trash incinerator in Crematorium III or flue for the purpose of utilizing the
high temperature of the emissions.”

On June 5, 1942, Topf sent Drawing D60446 to the Central Construction Of-
fice “regarding the installation of the boilers in the trash incinerator.” This
project involved the installations intended for Crematorium II.

I thought the Kremas were supposed to be corpse stores, or is it bomb shelters, or delousing chambers? I cannot keep up with all the contradictory revisionist hypothesis about the usage of the Kremas.

The problem with the revisionist investigation, is that it cannot prove actual usage or produce an evidenced chronology for each Krema and it has to ignore 100% of the witness and other evidence, that they were used for gassings. The standard of revisionist investigation is very poor, caused by their lack of training and inexperience in conducting such investigations.

And what proof do you have that they were gas chambers? Are you accusing us of what you really are, a believer in agendas, or are you not Jewish? You cannot be impartial on this issue, just as most Holocaust historians are Jewish and the trials of Nazi criminals were totally influenced by Jews because the history was already established, the crimes were public knowledge, and the courts merely endorsed them and gave the appearance of authority.

You accuse us of not having evidence of the function of the Kremas. Wrong, you do dismiss evidence of sanitary use that was found in the camp archives and distort the cremation capacity and the lack of fuel to feed them in favor of an unproven technique of self-sustained cremation of bodies.

[HansHill]

You accuse us of not having evidence of the function of the Kremas. Wrong, you do dismiss evidence of sanitary use that was found in the camp archives and distort the cremation capacity and the lack of fuel to feed them in favor of an unproven technique of self-sustained cremation of bodies.

>Accuses us of ignoring testimony
>Ignores documented correspondences when presented

Amazing.

[Nessie]

.....

I thought the Kremas were supposed to be corpse stores, or is it bomb shelters, or delousing chambers? I cannot keep up with all the contradictory revisionist hypothesis about the usage of the Kremas.

The problem with the revisionist investigation, is that it cannot prove actual usage or produce an evidenced chronology for each Krema and it has to ignore 100% of the witness and other evidence, that they were used for gassings. The standard of revisionist investigation is very poor, caused by their lack of training and inexperience in conducting such investigations.

And what proof do you have that they were gas chambers?

Here is a handy index of some of the documentary, witness and forensic evidence for gas chambers at A-B;

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... ce-on.html

Are you accusing us of what you really are, a believer in agendas, or are you not Jewish? You cannot be impartial on this issue, just as most Holocaust historians are Jewish and the trials of Nazi criminals were totally influenced by Jews because the history was already established, the crimes were public knowledge, and the courts merely endorsed them and gave the appearance of authority.

Whilst I link to evidence, you admit to bias and an agenda.

You accuse us of not having evidence of the function of the Kremas. Wrong, you do dismiss evidence of sanitary use that was found in the camp archives and distort the cremation capacity and the lack of fuel to feed them in favor of an unproven technique of self-sustained cremation of bodies.

The various revisionist claims about the use of the Kremas are showers, delousing chambers, corpse stores and bomb shelters. That is hardly inspiring investigatory work. Revisionists suggest a sanitary use (a vague term), but cannot produce any evidence of a sanitary action taking place. It is revisionists who distort cremation capacities and think arguing that since they cannot find evidence of sufficient fuel deliveries and cannot believe engineer descriptions of how the ovens worked, is proof of no mass cremations.

[Nessie]

You accuse us of not having evidence of the function of the Kremas. Wrong, you do dismiss evidence of sanitary use that was found in the camp archives and distort the cremation capacity and the lack of fuel to feed them in favor of an unproven technique of self-sustained cremation of bodies.

>Accuses us of ignoring testimony
>Ignores documented correspondences when presented

Amazing.

I don't accuse revisionists of ignoring testimony. I accuse them of inaccurate assessment of the witness testimony so that they come to the highly unlikely conclusion that 100% of the witnesses lied.

What documents have I ignored? Not responding in detail to every single reply to me, is not ignoring.

[HansHill]

The problem with the revisionist investigation, is..... it has to ignore 100% of the witness and other evidence,

I don't accuse revisionists of ignoring testimony.

Give it over.