Video of Germans gassing people with exhaust gas

[Callafangers]

I just want to make sure folks understand the problem here as it took me a moment to see it:

bricks.jpg (93.95 KiB) Viewed 95 times

You can actually count the number of shorter-length bricks between the two vertical lines under the window (or piping) in either photo. At all levels, there are only nine (9) in the alleged 'gassing' footage site, and there are ten (10) under the window at the Mogilev institute photo.

There is also a ledge which protrudes underneath the window, whereas there is only some questionable protrusion under the 'chamber' piping, and in any case the bricks which are on the questionable 'chamber' ledge are shorter (half-length) compared to those on the obvious protruding ledge under the window of the institute (full-length).

Compare this:

lower.jpg (178.96 KiB) Viewed 95 times

To this:

windowlower.jpg (69.51 KiB) Viewed 95 times

I think the biggest discrepancy remains the fewer number of bricks (nine vs. ten short bricks) between the "two [vertical] lines", especially since these two "straight lines" are reportedly (per Sergey) stated by witnesses, making this an important feature to consider.

It is still possible this is the same building and that Sergey just identified the wrong window but then, if so, we still face the lack of an original film/source, questionable provenance, inconsistent and/or dubious testimony, and typical pattern alignment with other Soviet post-war hoaxes and deception.

[fireofice]

It's fake and staged. It probably is a real car from Einsatzkommando 8, but the Allies definitely had access to all kinds of German vehicles after the war.

What distinguishes a car from Einsatzkommando 8, from just a car?

The symbols on the car.

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... ssing.html

[Stubble]

Right. The accused described the brick as being plastered though, so, unless they are mistaken, the photo and the video are from the wrong places.

Or the plaster was removed at some point. Which puts the picture and the video both not contemporary with the event as described.

Dr. Albert Widmann and his laboratory assistant Hans Schmidt

The scene shown on this picture cannot show the events at Mogilev. As I already made clear, the building was covered with white plaster and had a foundation block. Moreover, one of the two hoses we had brought with us was much thicker than the other one. The vehicles used at Mogilev did not stand parallel to, but perpendicular to, the wall of the house. To the best of my remembrance, the hose did not have a support. I am unable to identify the vehicles in the picture as vehicles of the RKPA [Reichspolizeiamt]. The RKPA did not have any trucks at all. I do not know the license plates of the vehicles, in particular, I cannot explain the tactical sign on the platform of the truck. I do not know this sign.

After a second look at the pictures, I wish to point out that the window walled up with bricks sharply stood out against the wall of the house, which was covered with white plaster, and looked abominably ugly. Finally I did not see anybody taking pictures.

In my opinion these pictures were not taken during the action in Mogilev. I only remember a connecting piece and a hose. I also believe that the boards lying before the wall and the post which can be seen on the picture did not exist at Mogilev. Furthermore, I remember that only the window was walled up with bricks and that the rest of the building was not made of bricks. Finally, I think that in Mogilev the vehicle stood further away from the house and that the position of the connecting piece [in the wall of the house] was lower. The license plates of the vehicles visible in the picture are unknown to me, this means that I do not know these license plates. […]

My memory of the action in Mogilev strongly differs from the scenes in these pictures. Therefore, I think that these pictures do not show the action in Mogilev. The facility shown on the photographs seems to be quite sophisticated whereas the facilty used at the action in Mogilev was clearly provisional.

[Callafangers]

It's fake and staged. It probably is a real car from Einsatzkommando 8, but the Allies definitely had access to all kinds of German vehicles after the war.

What distinguishes a car from Einsatzkommando 8, from just a car?

The symbols on the car.

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... ssing.html

I suppose it would be equally easy for the Soviets to paint relevant symbols on the back of vehicles as it would be for them to relocate the vehicles (for a propaganda film). Either option seems plausible and perfectly within available means.

I think this goes hand-in-hand with Stubble's points above, though... it would appear this staged gassing at the brick buildings was not part of the 'Mogilev test gassing' narrative at all, per Widmann and Schmidt... which can only mean one thing: a new 'gassing' discovery!

...but if it isn't Mogilev, then it seems we lack corroboration... but wait, this just in -- my grandpa says he was in Minsk in 1942 and he saw a gassing operation there, just like the one in the video (I only had to pay him $50 to say it)! My goodness -- this is a new, confirmed historical find! Let's add it to the official historical record.

Am I doing this historiography thing right, Hans? Nick? bombsaway?

[Wetzelrad]

What do you make of Sergey's analysis?

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... ng_23.html

This seems convincing to me. It's the same technique I would use. Their annotations are unhelpful, but the wall's features do appear to line up. Here's my go at it:

mog.gif (232.36 KiB) Viewed 41 times

I used perspective shift on a screengrab from the video, and nothing else. Callafangers's criticisms above are reasonable but not convincing. It isn't merely that the bricks are in a standard arrangement. Some of the rows of bricks are misaligned, yet they match in the images. Beside that, the darker bricks match, although it is hard to tell with all the damage and mess on the wall.

I also think a lot of revisionist arguments make sense here. The shadow of the man projected on the wall borders on absurd.

[Stubble]

I think this goes hand-in-hand with Stubble's points above, though... it would appear this staged gassing at the brick buildings was not part of the 'Mogilev test gassing' narrative at all, per Widmann and Schmidt... which can only mean one thing: a new 'gassing' discovery!

Or, hear me out, they shot their 'recreation' at the wrong building on the grounds...

I could go further, but, it becomes conspiratorial and non confirmable without the accused to interrogate.

[Callafangers]

I used perspective shift on a screengrab from the video, and nothing else. Callafangers's criticisms above are reasonable but not convincing. It isn't merely that the bricks are in a standard arrangement. Some of the rows of bricks are misaligned, yet they match in the images. Beside that, the darker bricks match, although it is hard to tell with all the damage and mess on the wall.

On closer review of some different stills in the video, I should concede that the panel of bricks in the video may be closer to ten short-bricks across than I initially interpreted. It's difficult to say for certain because the vertical line on the left is not clearly visible in any of the shots. But here's my latest count and given my best estimate of where the line on the left lies (still slightly less than ten short-bricks across, but arguably close enough):

3.jpg (131.75 KiB) Viewed 10 times

Regarding the general pattern of bricks, can you specify or highlight which specific bricks you note as "misaligned" (i.e. the masonry actually being uneven)? It looks pretty consistent to me but perhaps I've overlooked something.

As for the bricks "lining up", this really isn't compelling in itself to suggest we are seeing the same wall or even the same building. It is a common brick pattern.

Consider that this is the most prominent pattern which Sergey highlights to show similarity between the image and video in question:

4.jpg (46.41 KiB) Viewed 10 times

From the bricks that can be made out in the [grainy, low quality] institution photo, we can see it there, more than once:

1.jpg (93.1 KiB) Viewed 10 times

The thing is: this is a tiled pattern -- it repeats over and over again, exactly the same each time:

2.jpg (85.1 KiB) Viewed 10 times

Thus, to find this pattern in a similar kind of bricklaying is not uncommon at all -- it is guaranteed, as it repeats every ten inches or so. This also means that to find a vertical line intersecting it at a similar point (say, within one inch) in each image is not statistical proof. I would still count it as supporting evidence for the claim it's the same location, but this alone is not enough to draw a conclusion.

Moreover, as shown in the second-to-last image above, it is completely clear that the protruding ledge pointed out earlier is not of the same brickwork. The only charitable interpretation is that it has been rebuilt at some point:

ledge.jpg (47.4 KiB) Viewed 7 times

Additionally, the still image (the institute) was taken at war's end when the building is riddled with what appears to be hundreds of bullet impacts and explosive shrapnel dents/debris. This coupled with the terrible image quality in both images limits the ability to draw a valid conclusion about their being the same place.

I am quite open to the possibility they are the same location -- after all, if I were the Soviets, I would certainly prefer to develop propaganda imagery at the same location I'm alleging such events to have occurred -- but I think we all have witnessed the "noble victors" be sloppier than this in the past, so I think it's worth still applying careful scrutiny to even the claim that this is the same building. As for now, I remain skeptical.