Why are the 'chimneys' for the zyklon b insertion holes so big (around 2 feet wide, 2 feet long, and 5ish feet tall) in the aerial photographs, but so small in the construction photographs?
Why are these 'chimneys' missing from the September 13th photo set? (Feel free to check the whole set and see if you find them, you won't)
Why do historians grant revisionists that the lack of the insertion holes on the roof remains at Krema II is odd if the random holes with bent rebar are supposed to be the insertion holes, and not inspection holes used to gain access to the ruins and to get samples post war?
Odd, ain't it?
I'd mention the 3 forms in the construction photographs as opposed to the supposed 4 in the reconnaissance photographs, but, it's a dead horse.
For bonus points, who can tell me how many roof layers of concrete were poured and why, and why concrete pouring forms would have been used at the support columns. Apparently an engineering degree and experience in concrete work are necessary to guess, and that I don't have. I've just supervised pours.
Aerial Reconnaissance Photographs and Zyklon Insertion Holes
Re: Aerial Reconnaissance Photographs and Zyklon Insertion Holes
Problems with the hole theory:
1) Experts cannot agree do the holes exist or not
Robert Jan Van Pelt has said that the holes cannot be found because the Germans cemented over them before evacuating the site to hide the evidence. To quote Van Pelt:
“In my own expert report to the court, I had stated that ‘today, these four small holes that connected the wire-mesh columns and the chimneys cannot be observed in the ruined remains of the concrete slab.’”
2) Aerial footage
Shadowy blotches do appear on some aerial photos, and are entirely missing from others. See John C. Ball's work on this why this is particularly worrisome.
3) Landscape photos
There is at least one photo showing "something" on the roof (which is slightly raised above ground level, therefore easily traversible) of the Krema. These items could be anything, buckets, stools, chairs, barrels etc. Remember the Kremas were sunken so this area could be taversed. We also know this roof was tarred for waterproofing, so those buckets i mentioned earlier could be from construction work.
To his credit, Charles Provan in his analysis agrees with the Revisionists that there is no photographic evidence to show clearly any Zyklon Holes
4) State of extant holes
Provan points to two extant holes in the rubble (Provan Hole 6 and Provan Hole 8) which were the Zyklon Holes. The problem here is that these holes appear to have been cut away after the war, as they contain iron support rods which were lazily bent back by hand, and not poured into the concrete. This was around the same time we know the Poles had made alterations to Krema I in the main camp, and shortly before the Allies were doctoring up their Buchenwald Halloween Party, so we know this was on their minds at this exact point in time.
5) Strong indications the extant holes were cut away after the war
Aside from the iron rods, we can tell the holes were cut away after the war, by examining the lack of destructive damage to the holes caused by the dynamite. If a force is applied to a wall (or ceiling) with a hole, the force will concentrate at that inevitable point of weakness, causing fracture points. The Provan holes contain no such fracture or stress points, so we can infer they were never exposed to the explosion (hence were cut after the war)
1) Experts cannot agree do the holes exist or not
Robert Jan Van Pelt has said that the holes cannot be found because the Germans cemented over them before evacuating the site to hide the evidence. To quote Van Pelt:
“In my own expert report to the court, I had stated that ‘today, these four small holes that connected the wire-mesh columns and the chimneys cannot be observed in the ruined remains of the concrete slab.’”
2) Aerial footage
Shadowy blotches do appear on some aerial photos, and are entirely missing from others. See John C. Ball's work on this why this is particularly worrisome.
3) Landscape photos
There is at least one photo showing "something" on the roof (which is slightly raised above ground level, therefore easily traversible) of the Krema. These items could be anything, buckets, stools, chairs, barrels etc. Remember the Kremas were sunken so this area could be taversed. We also know this roof was tarred for waterproofing, so those buckets i mentioned earlier could be from construction work.
To his credit, Charles Provan in his analysis agrees with the Revisionists that there is no photographic evidence to show clearly any Zyklon Holes
4) State of extant holes
Provan points to two extant holes in the rubble (Provan Hole 6 and Provan Hole 8) which were the Zyklon Holes. The problem here is that these holes appear to have been cut away after the war, as they contain iron support rods which were lazily bent back by hand, and not poured into the concrete. This was around the same time we know the Poles had made alterations to Krema I in the main camp, and shortly before the Allies were doctoring up their Buchenwald Halloween Party, so we know this was on their minds at this exact point in time.
5) Strong indications the extant holes were cut away after the war
Aside from the iron rods, we can tell the holes were cut away after the war, by examining the lack of destructive damage to the holes caused by the dynamite. If a force is applied to a wall (or ceiling) with a hole, the force will concentrate at that inevitable point of weakness, causing fracture points. The Provan holes contain no such fracture or stress points, so we can infer they were never exposed to the explosion (hence were cut after the war)
Re: Aerial Reconnaissance Photographs and Zyklon Insertion Holes
That'd be Holocaust Handbook #27, right?
https://armreg.co.uk/product/air-photo- ... -analyzed/
Also, there is an 'Another Voice of Freedom' interview that is worth watching.
(I think that bitchute channel may be run by an anti semite)
https://armreg.co.uk/product/air-photo- ... -analyzed/
Also, there is an 'Another Voice of Freedom' interview that is worth watching.
(I think that bitchute channel may be run by an anti semite)
Re: Aerial Reconnaissance Photographs and Zyklon Insertion Holes
They cemented before they destroyed. No comments
At AB the Soviets had better tools than at Majdanek, this is clear to see, where they failed at Majdanek they succeeded at AB
At AB the Soviets had better tools than at Majdanek, this is clear to see, where they failed at Majdanek they succeeded at AB
Re: Aerial Reconnaissance Photographs and Zyklon Insertion Holes
Yes 27, apologies I should have been clearer in my post!Stubble wrote: ↑Thu Jan 16, 2025 5:17 pm That'd be Holocaust Handbook #27, right?
https://armreg.co.uk/product/air-photo- ... -analyzed/
Also, there is an 'Another Voice of Freedom' interview that is worth watching.
(I think that bitchute channel may be run by an anti semite)
Re: Aerial Reconnaissance Photographs and Zyklon Insertion Holes
Hell man, it's no sweat. Gave me an in to link that interview.HansHill wrote: ↑Thu Jan 16, 2025 8:36 pmYes 27, apologies I should have been clearer in my post!Stubble wrote: ↑Thu Jan 16, 2025 5:17 pm That'd be Holocaust Handbook #27, right?
https://armreg.co.uk/product/air-photo- ... -analyzed/
Also, there is an 'Another Voice of Freedom' interview that is worth watching.
(I think that bitchute channel may be run by an anti semite)
Online
Re: Aerial Reconnaissance Photographs and Zyklon Insertion Holes
Here is Mattogno's analysis of the photo with the "holes":
It should be noted that not all the air photos show these "holes". The one on May 31, 1944 for example shows none where they are supposed to be.
https://codoh.com/library/document/no-h ... -chambers/Since the above patches were not shadows, what then were they? Kenneth R. Wilson advanced the hypothesis that they were “discolorations on the surface of the roof.” John C. Ball claimed that these are not discolorations of the roof but of the negative, that is, marks that had been put onto the negative by a forger.
There are, however, less radical explanations. For example, the marks may have been by some kind of flat vegetation on the roof, because the morgues were covered with earth to keep them cool. However, this does not explain why these marks are visible on some photos but not on others.
Another explanation could be that the soil covering the morgues had to be removed temporarily for reparation purposes. The roofs of morgue 1 of crematoria II and III were made of reinforced concrete 18 cm thick, insulated from rainwater by a layer of bitumen which was protected from atmospheric agents by a thin layer of cement. It is conceivable that this thin layer of concrete had been damaged, resulting in leaks, which could have led the Central Construction Office to have the soil removed in order to perform the reparations necessary. But it seems more likely that such a soil removal would have been done in large areas, but not in areas merely 3 m long and 1 m wide. There is also no documentary evidence for such reparation works.
A final possibility is that the morgues were not at all covered with earth at the time these photos were made, and that the marks indicate areas were the upper concrete layer had been damaged and the lower layer of black bitumen emerged, creating the patches which are seen on the aerial photographs.
It should be noted that not all the air photos show these "holes". The one on May 31, 1944 for example shows none where they are supposed to be.
Re: Aerial Reconnaissance Photographs and Zyklon Insertion Holes
The clearest photo is the little train photo and it shows box shapes on the Krema roof. They tally with witness and documentary evidence of covers over the holes in the roof of the Krema, that were removed to pour Zyklon B into the Leichenkeller below.
The shape of the covers helps to explain the shapes seen in the aerial photos;
The boxes will cast shadows, or maybe not, depending on the light and angle of the sun.
The images, both construction and aerial, are black and white and not of the best quality and resolution. They will not show smaller details in great detail. Add those photos to other evidence about the Krema roofs, and there is sufficient to prove that they did have holes in them in 1943-4.
The shape of the covers helps to explain the shapes seen in the aerial photos;
The boxes will cast shadows, or maybe not, depending on the light and angle of the sun.
The images, both construction and aerial, are black and white and not of the best quality and resolution. They will not show smaller details in great detail. Add those photos to other evidence about the Krema roofs, and there is sufficient to prove that they did have holes in them in 1943-4.
Re: Aerial Reconnaissance Photographs and Zyklon Insertion Holes
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?
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?
Re: Aerial Reconnaissance Photographs and Zyklon Insertion Holes
The holes in question are described in the photos as being in a straight line, but since they should have been spread diagonally from left to right in Krema I, if you calculate the size of these openings in the aerial photos, they should have been huge, which makes no sense at all.
In Rudolf's lectures on the Holocaust, he claims that these objects, especially those in the photo taken near the railway, were remnants of the completion of the construction of this building, since they are distributed differently and are of different sizes. He bases this on a photo taken weeks earlier and there were none of these objects.
He ends his thesis with the following
"To conclude, let me point out one more absurdity. As already mentioned, the official historiography claims that crematoria II and III were transformed for execution purposes only during their construction. As supposed evidence for this, changes to the plans that took place in the late autumn or early winter of 1942 are presented. I will prove further below that these changes were completely harmless and had nothing to do with an intention to murder. What I want to get at is this: if the SS, as alleged, began modifying the crematoria in late autumn 1942, how can it be explained that they concreted the roof slabs of morgue I of crematorium II in January 1943, without having foreseen the holes for introducing Zyklon-B?
In Rudolf's lectures on the Holocaust, he claims that these objects, especially those in the photo taken near the railway, were remnants of the completion of the construction of this building, since they are distributed differently and are of different sizes. He bases this on a photo taken weeks earlier and there were none of these objects.
He ends his thesis with the following
"To conclude, let me point out one more absurdity. As already mentioned, the official historiography claims that crematoria II and III were transformed for execution purposes only during their construction. As supposed evidence for this, changes to the plans that took place in the late autumn or early winter of 1942 are presented. I will prove further below that these changes were completely harmless and had nothing to do with an intention to murder. What I want to get at is this: if the SS, as alleged, began modifying the crematoria in late autumn 1942, how can it be explained that they concreted the roof slabs of morgue I of crematorium II in January 1943, without having foreseen the holes for introducing Zyklon-B?
Re: Aerial Reconnaissance Photographs and Zyklon Insertion Holes
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.
Re: Aerial Reconnaissance Photographs and Zyklon Insertion Holes
Argument from incredulity. Rudolf presents no evidence, from a witness who worked on the roof, or photo or anything to conclusively prove that 1943-4, it never had any holes in it. Krema IIITlsMS93 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 1:22 pm ....
In Rudolf's lectures on the Holocaust, he claims that these objects, especially those in the photo taken near the railway, were remnants of the completion of the construction of this building, since they are distributed differently and are of different sizes. He bases this on a photo taken weeks earlier and there were none of these objects.
He ends his thesis with the following
"To conclude, let me point out one more absurdity..."
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... er_III.jpg
Re: Aerial Reconnaissance Photographs and Zyklon Insertion Holes
Then, why present the unrelated photographs together as evidence when they clearly are not related?
That's an odd choice Nessie.
Re: Aerial Reconnaissance Photographs and Zyklon Insertion Holes
And what does the photo prove? Hitting a slab now can incriminate someone. 
So the evil Nazis let the builders survive to tell that there were holes there and this after all the work of cementing and then blowing up the buildings?
The Holocaust is a cornucopia of absurdities
Arthur R. Butz
So the evil Nazis let the builders survive to tell that there were holes there and this after all the work of cementing and then blowing up the buildings?
The Holocaust is a cornucopia of absurdities
Arthur R. Butz
Online
Re: Aerial Reconnaissance Photographs and Zyklon Insertion Holes
It's interesting that Nessie didn't post the photos that show no "holes".
The photo Nessie posted were clearly boxes of some kind of material that were left there.
- tr-2004-4-image219.jpg (12.22 KiB) Viewed 118 times
- tr-2004-4-image213.jpg (11.7 KiB) Viewed 118 times
Last edited by fireofice on Fri Jan 17, 2025 11:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.