Fred Ziffel wrote: ↑Sat Jan 10, 2026 4:45 am
I am at the Editing phase and am hoping the good folks here can look it over and give input.
Here are a few notes.
After the war, the doorway was modified to a location that would make no common sense.
You might want to reword some of this page. According to both Pressac and Rudolf, it was the Germans that bricked over the original doorway.
https://www.historiography-project.com/ ... tz/157.php
Which doesn't change your arguments, it's just a piece of info the exclusion of which could mislead readers.
Image on the right within the red square verifies it to be a double swing door
Well, it doesn't exactly "verify" it. The doorway symbol in the floorplan drawing conventionally depicts a double swing door, so that should be the default assumption, but it's always possible that it was wrong in some way. We know that what was planned and what was constructed did not always match. Verification would require finding physical traces of the hinge in the wall or something like that.
Though I would say it approaches near-certainty with your inclusion of the two or three other drawings that show the same thing.
There is no question the Majdanek bunker was exposed to Zyklon B due to the blue staining on walls and ceiling, yet the blue staining from Zyklon B exposure is absent from the Auschwitz gas chamber walls and ceiling.
I might exclude this for one reason. Since all blue-stained buildings were new construction while Crema I was a much older building, the pH of the concrete/mortar probably would have inhibited Iron Blue formation there. So while photo comparisons of this type are
usually compelling, there is actually a good reason against it for this instance. Though I'm open to being proven wrong.
Fred Ziffel wrote: ↑Sat Jan 10, 2026 4:45 am
Other issues not listed by me that could make arguments stronger
Yes, you're missing the argument that the whole theory of the case is based on a reconstruction that was not admitted to be a reconstruction until decades later. In any other situation this would be called overt fraud. Maybe this is trite, but it's still a great point in my opinion. Here is a pertinent quote from Dwork/Van Pelt.
You also left out the common argument about the Zyklon holes being positioned according to the postwar layout, which to me is highly persuasive for it being a fraud. Best depicted here:
https://archive.org/details/germar-rudo ... 9/mode/1up
Some other things. It deserves a punchy intro slide, IMO. An attention getter. Also some of your strongest arguments are near the bottom of the document and your weakest ones at the top, which is bad for modern attention spans.
It could be useful to draw up a short and simple timeline somewhere in the document. The average reader needs help putting all the events in order.
- Prewar - It was a Polish ammo depot.
- 1940 - Converted to crematorium.
- 1942-3 - Alleged gassings in the morgue.
- 1944 - Converted to air raid shelter.
- 1947 - Soviet reconstruction.
Possibly also list out all the modifications involved in the "reconstruction" in one place, to create a full picture in the reader's mind. They created ceiling holes, doorway, chimney, furnaces, and removed walls. Perhaps more.
I'm sure there is more to be said about this location, but I have nothing novel to add.