Auschwitz Birkenau and the blob

[Fred Ziffel]

Blob at Crem 2 or 3 gas chamber
I was working on another project concerning Crem 1 building and I came across this video.
Link to video:

Stop video at 2:09-2:10 on full screen or just believe me. Have you ever seen this view from the sky this close up albeit a bit grainy?

See attached

I submitted an edited and unedited version of 2:09-2:10 of video. I will submit more photos drawings, or you can watch video to understand the size of the roof compared to 70cm x 70cm box ceiling hole.
Focus on the blob at the area of the gas chamber. My placement of the alleged gas chamber may not be perfect, but it is very close.

The take-away here is I see a huge blob, I do not see a 70cm x 70cm box mounted to the roof for that Kula thingy. No lines, no corners, not even blurred indications of a hole in the roof or box, Compare the size of that blob to the size of the roof of just ½ this building width. The distance to roof and to blob in the grand scheme of things is not all that different from this vantage point. Compare to the other blobs to the left of the alleged gas chamber.

How big of a hole do you need to pour 5mm gypsum pellets into a hole? I say a 4-inch diameter pipe will do the job just fine as I stated in past postings.
What do you see? What is your input? Is this blob what I should be seeing as a Kula Thingy hole from this photo? Could this be a closeup of a CIA ruse that blurs as you home in?

Kula collum specs at alleged gas chamber: 70cm x 70cm
Crem Chimney opening specs: 80cm x 120cm
The next 3 post I will submit more images to accompany this posting

[Fred Ziffel]

more supporting material

[Fred Ziffel]

last of supporting materials
end

[Cowboy]

The frame in the video looks like a close-up of this image that was released by the CIA.

ABAir.jpg (163.84 KiB) Viewed 378 times

It seems fairly obvious that the "Zyklon-B Vents" in both Crematoria II and III were added to the picture using some sort of marker. You can see the "blob" on Crema II in this image. The holes in Crema III are so poorly drawn on that it's almost unbelievable that they published it. There's a great presentation done by John Ball on air photos. He talks about the Auschwitz air photos at around the 22:00 mark but I think the whole thing is a great watch. Hopefully that helps with your inquiry

[Wetzelrad]

Have you ever seen this view from the sky this close up albeit a bit grainy?

Maybe not, but it's of nearly the same quality as the one in Air-Photo Evidence. It's the aerial photo of August 25, 1944. Open your copy to page 93 (Link) for the best close-up.

If you go through pages 90-92 you can see how Crematoria II and III appeared on numerous dates that photos were taken, from 1943 to 1945 (Link).

The chimney marks you call blobs are actually more distinct on this date than on other dates where they appear. The author discussed them more specifically on pages 64-65 (Link). He also concluded that they were the wrong size and shape and angle and were possibly faked.

Notably, almost all of the analysis of these photos came before Pressac and other defenders seized upon the idea of Kula columns, so I don't think anyone has attempted to claim that Kula columns are visible in them, just the chimneys that they would theoretically be attached to.

Your comparison to the scale model is good. Something so small could not cast such a giant shadow.

[Fred Ziffel]

then we get this in the attachment. Portion of a photo we all know
How can that blob represent a hole in the roof or a Kula thingy?

[Fred Ziffel]

Apologies for bringing in Majdanek into this conversation
Here is the famous photo of the Soviet soldier opening a box that look like the alleged Auschwitz boxes in a drying room at Majdanek.
and
One of the openings from B41.

Did findings at Majdanek liberated a full 6 months in advance of Auschwitz liberation, influence the narrative coming from Auschwitz? They at least certainly look similar

Both boxes found not to be associated with gassing people

[Wetzelrad]

How can that blob represent a hole in the roof or a Kula thingy?

Questions like these deserve answers, but I don't expect anyone who comes here will provide them.

Here is some relevant testimony from the David Irving trial:

Irving: [... W]ould you estimate on the evidence in front of you approximately how big those dots are?
Van Pelt: I find it very difficult. I do not know exactly how the shadow runs.
[...]
Van Pelt: It is very difficult to determine the size of the objects, because of the way the shadow works. If one looks at the shadow of the chimney, one sees that the chimney really projects considerably out of the building, the shadow of the chimney.
[...]
Irving: Both the crematorium chimney and the protruberances on the roof which you think these dots are, would they all be vertical?
Van Pelt: Yes.
Irving: So they would all cast shadows in the same direction, at the same angle, would they not, if that were so?
Van Pelt: Yes, that is quite likely.
Irving: On this photograph they clearly do not cast shadows in the same direction. The smudges or dots appear to be first one way and then another?
Van Pelt: Yes, that is the indeed true.
[...]
Van Pelt: But I think that these dots show very clearly that there are four introduction devices in morgue No. 1, or four something on top of that roof.
Irving: Professor, I strongly suggest that is a major quantum leap to suggest that a dot which on the face of it is about 15 feet long on the roof of this crematorium building can have anything at all to do with the protruberances that you were talking about earlier, which at its largest extent in the eyewitness evidence that I have seen is of the order of 36 inches.
Van Pelt: Mr Irving, the whole of the width of what you call the alleged gas chamber I think is something like, what is it, a little less than 20 feet. So, if you look at the width of this room and you look then at the dots, we are certainly not talking about dots which are 15 feet wide. We are more looking at dots which are probably 3 feet wide.
Irving: I strongly disagree. They are over one quarter of the width of that roof in all their versions and manifestations on these various photographs.
Van Pelt: I am not going to argue at moment about the width.
Irving: Moreover, they cast no shadow.
Van Pelt: It is impossible to say what kind of shadow they cast.
[...]
Irving: What have you to say about the spacing of those smudges when you compare them with what I call the tar barrels on the roof in the other photograph? They are differently spaced, are they not?
Van Pelt: I cannot judge that. In the one photo we looking from more or less ground level at these boxes, and now we look more or less straight from above and it is impossible to come to any conclusion one way or another.
Irving: I disagree with you. Would it not be correct to say that in fact there is a very uneven spacing in the four tar barrels visible from the ground, whereas the smudges on the roof appear to be admittedly irregularly spaced but in a totally different way. Therefore, they have no connection whatsoever with the protruberances that are visible from ground level.
Van Pelt: I have no comment on that.

https://www.hdot.org/day10/

I find Van Pelt's answers totally unsatisfactory. Are these questions really "impossible" to answer?

[Wetzelrad]

I had forgotten that the 2004 Keren et al paper attempted to explain away these problems.

According to the authors, the holes themselves are "precisely 50x50cm" and the covers are "about 60 x 60 cm". Because of their small size, "It is impossible to observe the Zyklon holes themselves in any of the aerial photographs." This quote seems so remarkable that revisionists probably ought to use it frequently. These aerial photos are still to this day presented as definitive proof of gassings, yet what we're told to see in them is actually "impossible to observe", according to the most in-depth study, published in the journal of Holocaust and Genocide Studies.

However the authors immediately contradicted themselves by saying that actually the holes (or "vents") can be seen only if using a stereoscopic viewer with two side-by-side photos. 3D effects being well-understood, this should be easy to recreate on a personal computer or other modern tech, if true.

The authors tried to explain the blobs, or what they call "smudges", with several alternative theories. The blobs could be: "a path of compacted earth", "a different growth pattern of grass", "wet areas", or "the inner cores of the wire mesh columns". I wonder if bombsaway or any other user here would be willing to defend these ideas.

[Fred Ziffel]

to end this rant, I will submit this photo I got from Hanover years back
I do not see anything, sincere thanks to all for your input