The CODOH Revisionist Forum

What we know about the four roof openings at Krema I was that they were built or repurposed after the war. However, the original number is disputed among academics. Jean Claude Pressac, in his book 'Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers,' claimed that there were three in a straight line. Others have agreed with him. However, in 2000, in an effort to silence Mr. Irving in his lawsuit against Deborah Lipstadt, three members of the Holocaust History Project set out to refute his claims that the roof openings didn't exist after the war. Daniel Keren, Harry W. Mazal and Jamie McCarthy's paper 'The Ruins of the Gas Chambers: A Forensic Investigation of Crematoriums at Auschwitz I and Auschwitz-Birkenau' achieved just that, discouraging Mr Irving from continuing his appeal. However, what was in this paper and what did they prove unequivocally?

The paper reaffirms that the repurposed holes were indeed the 'originals' and shows 'proof' of a fifth hole opening on the underside of the ceiling. (f31) The claim that this sealed hole (Z1) is original, is backed up by an assertion that there are 'marks' on an original roof photo the Soviets took in 1945.

The original photo is very faint and in higher quality certainly doesn't show any visible holes, however the paper points to areas where it claims marks exist, and aligns it with the location of the current roof vents. It claims Z2, Z3, Z5, and Z4 are the hole openings that are visible today, with Z1 being 'sealed up' and Z5 being 'off camera,' but assumed to be there regardless.

Upon looking at the ceiling, there are four openings (the openings we see today) and three other 'sealed openings' or patched up areas with cement. The paper suggests Z1 is a sealed zyklon hole, and the other two areas are sealed ventilation openings, which housed 'circular vents.' (f32) The paper doesn't really explain how it came to these findings, only that it's supported by Złobnicki's survivor testimony and the slight marks on the 1945 photograph. The paper also asserts that it used a camera which 'mathematically mapped the marks' with an optimization program. Which is probably what scared Mr Irving off. From what I've read, this is not as sophisticated as it sounds. It works by finding a similar spot to where the original owner took the photograph, mapping the location of the 'marks' with the camera in the same frame, and then measuring them with tape, etc. It doesn't exactly sound very accurate. The paper also doesn't tell you that Złobnicki only mentioned seeing three holes in the ceiling.

Genuine to see what people's thoughts are on this? The paper makes a lot of assumptions based on a very grainy photo from 1945. Do you believe its findings? How about the cemented patches on the underside. What do you think these were?


https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/T ... 586e05dcaa
https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... ntro.shtml

Photos of the 'patched up holes' from the paper.

Note the more circular shape and very visible rebar.

This photo from the paper (2004) was used to recreate the 1945 Soviet photo to map out and measure the marks by tape. The paper claims that the slight marks seen in the 1945 photo 'match up' perfectly with the existing openings today.

Of course, one has to consider how accurate this method is, in terms of finding the exact same location as the original photographer and the difference in camera lens, etc. Also, the entire premise depends on the minor blemishes being genuine. One cannot help but believe that pareidolia is at work here.

Today we don't see any markings on the roof as the paper suggests were evident in the original 1945 photo. Wouldn't Z1, the fifth hole show a visible mark?

Here is the ceiling (looking up) showing the Z4 hole, and where the sealed Z1 and 32a (ventilation hole) exists. Z2 is also visible on the bottom left.

Here is the 2004 paper's plan of the hole layout

Compared with an updated 3d model visualisation (1942 plan)

Current day plan

The matching measurements of 7.1m and 5.1m from either side, from the air-lock (which didn't exist at the time of the gassing) to the rear wall of the washroom (when the front wall existed) is very interesting. It indicates that these two walls were used to set out the roof hole locations, however the air-lock wall didn't exist until 1944, two years after the gas chamber.

If it was a simple 'reopening' of the holes as the 2004 paper suggests, then why do the placement of the holes' correspond to the 1944 interior layout?

The placement of the opening (Z3) on top of the two entrances is also strange, and could have potentially compromised the entry ways.

https://carolynyeager.net/new-eric-hunt ... -hole-hoax

It is also somewhat strange that the current openings line up perfectly with the interior walls that were added when it was converted into an air-raid shelter in 1944.


1944 plan (before the interior walls were taken out by the Soviets)

While the 2004 paper claims that the patch-up marks on the ceiling are sealed 'ventilation outlets,' today we can also see visible cement marks on the external wall and floor as well.

Is it possible that these patch ups (including the ceiling) were indeed circular ventilation shafts? Perhaps when the room was used as a morgue to remove odours and pathogens? If so, who patched these up? Was it necessary for the Germans to patch up these small holes when the building was converted to an air-raid shelter? Or did the Soviets do it in 'restoration?'

Furthermore, this website claims that one of the ventilation shafts is still visible on the ceiling today.

https://furtherglory.com/AuschwitzScrap ... tz08A.html

However, upon closer inspection, it appears to be the floor drain that is present in the centre of the chamber..

Hi Wonka Man, welcome!

This topic is explored in Holocaust Handbooks Vol 18 - chapter 3.2.2

I'll paste below the conclusions and summary following that passage below, although that passage does not deal with the "floor drain as ventilation hole" hypothesis! That is a new one for me, the absolute chutzpah of these people. Although to be fair this probably doesn't represent the current state of the Orthodox narrative, and this is probably something along the lines of a school-project website or a hobbyist rather than a serious attempt at investigation. Still though, fascinating find!

=====

Conclusion

The four openings now in the roof of the morgue are not original, and the dark
spots, which appear on the photograph published by J.-C. Pressac, were not
traces of openings (as borne out by the fact that no trace of a square opening
on the ceiling corresponds to any of these dark spots).

Furthermore, sealing any openings in the roof of the crematorium would
hardly have left depressions of such clarity. Leveling of the surface of an
opening that has been filled with sand mortar and cement needs only a simple
wooden board larger than the hole itself; but if one had wanted to create such
depressions, it would have been necessary to painstakingly scratch out the
cement from the surface of the hole filled with mortar. It would have amount-
ed to a form of sabotage on the part of the bricklayer Kommando to leave such
obvious traces of the alleged openings. No detainee would have risked that
because on the inside, on the ceiling of the morgue, obvious traces of the clo-
sure of the holes would have remained apparent anyway.

The detainees of the roofing detail would have had to perform a similar
kind of sabotage by shaping the roofing felt to fit exactly the profile of the al-
leged quadrangular depressions in the cement.

The explanation of the dark spots is much simpler: they were caused by
compression of the roofing felt, which had become soft from sunlight, under
the weight of a flat and heavy object such as a cement vase or other decoration
from the Soviet-Polish dance frolic – and that explains why the fold in the
roofing felt is so marked along the edges instead of being slightly concave.

Summary

1. There is no proof that the alleged openings for the introduction of Zyklon
B ever existed in the ceiling of the morgue of Crematorium I.
2. There is no proof that the morgue was ever equipped with two gas-tight
doors.
3. In contradiction with any kind of logical planning, these alleged gas-tight
doors are said to have been later removed by the SS when the crematorium
was converted to a gas-tight air-raid shelter and replaced by one normal
door and one standard gas-tight door (such as it currently exists in the
crematory).
4. The traces of cyanides present in the walls of the morgue do not prove that
the room was used as a homicidal gas chamber.
5. The number of openings made by the Poles after the war (four) is at vari-
ance with all available testimonies. This also goes for the number (five)
adopted by the members of the Holocaust History Project.
6. The Polish “reconstruction” of both the location of the openings and the
structure and dimensions of the Zyklon B introduction shafts has neither
basis in documents nor in witness statements. In fact there are no docu-
ments, and no witness has furnished any information on these.
7. There is no proof that the four dark spots visible on the roof of Crematori-
um I in the photograph published by Pressac are traces of former openings
that were later sealed; on the contrary, no trace on the ceiling of the
morgue corresponds to any of these dark spots.
8. The remaining traces of former openings in the ceiling are circular and are
no doubt connected to the transformation of the crematorium into an air-
raid shelter.
9. The openings created by the Poles make sense, geometrically speaking, on-
ly in the context of the present state of the morgue, but are totally asym-
metric and irrational when seen in the context of its original state. This is
further proof that they have nothing whatsoever to do with any alleged
original openings.

In my own personal opinion, Krema I and the whole narrative surrounding it is particularly weak and it seems like that aspect of the official narrative will be the first to collapse. The entire thing is a mess. We may already be seeing signs of its collapse in that it tends to get increasinly less attention in places like Codoh! However, for now, Orthodoxy has chosen to lock itself into the "where there were crematories, there were gas chambers" narrative.

Forgot to address the rebar issue. And this is a feature at the Birkenau site also.

The presence of rebar alone demonstrates that they were not zyklon insertion holes and were cut away after the war in a sloppy attempt at post-war fabrication of evidence. In the case of Birkenau this is even more strongly demonstrated as the rebar is bent back seemingly by hand, and would be a physical impediment to the secure fastening of the non-existent Kula columns.

Fred and Arnold's take on this
Note the odd location of ceiling hole "A". This may be why the wall that was there was not rebuilt and the doorway from the alleged GC to oven room is moved away from ceiling hole "A" Who would put a hole to drop in Zyklon at this location
By tearing down wall and leaving it down, the museum opens themselves up to critique of the wooden door with glass pain
You can see where the wall was by floor and wall trace.
When you align with the corpse loader track in the floor you see where the door was
all kinds of interesting construction going on here

Conclusions and thoughts

The photo reproduction from the 2004 report is actually fairly impressive. The viewpoint is quite similar, as are the frame's slope and angle. I believe it may be zoomed in a bit much, and it's obviously not exact, however this is nitpicking.
I do still question, how one can accurately pinpoint each of the marks, and identify them as 'square holes.' One is clear to be (Z1), however the others are very vague and can be interpreted as even asymmetrical. The visible mark to the left (Z4), seems too far in. (see photos below.) I've measured this to be about 800-1000mm from the roof's edge (based on the position of Z4 on the ceiling.) The mark in the Soviet photo appears to be greater > than 1000mm from the edge. The 2004 report claims that hole Z5 is 'off camera.' Why? It is in line with Z4 and should be visible from this viewpoint, based on the location of Z4.

As for my other thoughts on this report -

- the felt roof that we see today is not original and was laid by the Poles/ Soviets after the war. The reason for this was for waterproofing, however the building still leaks inside, and did so in earlier photos from the 1980's.
- The premise for 2004 report relies solely on the authenticity of the mark depressions. However, in the original 1945 Soviet photo, we can already see work has been done and temporary structures are in place. The timber pole barriers along the perimeter (for the Soviet rooftop party), the party table, benches, a stack of large tiles, and the new roof felt covering.
One has to ask, given all these early modifications, how do we know the Soviets didn't just make these marks?
- If we look at the stack of thick tiles on the bottom left, near the timber bench, it oddly seems like similar fit for hole Z1?
We know these openings were about 700x700, which is a similar size to a common large tile (600x600). Were the Soviets using the square tiles on the roof to set-out the holes? Was the felt cut in these positions?
- If the marks depressions were, indeed, the original holes, why didn't the Soviets reopen hole Z1?
- I've cited Mattogno's corresponding measurements earlier, of 5100 and 7100 from two walls on the ground floor, one of which didn't exist until 1944 (the airlock wall) and the other which had a wall in front of it (the washroom.) These figures aren't coincidental, it's likely the hole openings were set-out in an arrangement, measured from these two walls.
I'm not sure how the Germans did this in 1942 when one wall didn't' exist, and the other had a wall in front of it.
Considering how they perfectly align with the 1944 air-raid layout (with the five internal walls) it's likely the Soviets set this out on the bottom, so when they were punching the holes in on the top, they would bypass the internal walls & beams below.
- Apart from the four square openings, Mattogno counted four circular (likely ventilation) hole openings. He includes Z1 as one of the circular ventilation holes. All of these circular holes have been patched up. It is odd that circular holes 3 and 2 are so close to each other. I am of the belief that no.2 (which is Z1) was a failed Soviet attempt at a square vent opening, or perhaps they chose to stick to the current slanted-H layout. This is speculation. However, the close proximity doesn't make sense. It is likely true that the Germans would've had small ventilation holes, and circular holes are seen in the remains of Krema II. This is likely what ignited the stories.

Mattogno's hole layout plan
Key:

Opened holes: A = Z3, B = Z2, C = Z5, D = Z4

Sealed: 2 = Z1

Note: We know that 2 (Z1) and D (Z4) line up, so he made a slight mistake here.

Here's where Pressac talks about this. He claims that "it is possible to see THREE places where the former traps for introducing Zyklon B have been filled in" (I think this is a leap) but he also says that soon after the war there was a dance held on the roof of the gas chamber which he admits is strange.

https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... 0149.shtml

Archie wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2025 7:14 am Here's where Pressac talks about this. He claims that "it is possible to see THREE places where the former traps for introducing Zyklon B have been filled in" (I think this is a leap) but he also says that soon after the war there was a dance held on the roof of the gas chamber which he admits is strange.

https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... 0149.shtml

Yes, it's obvious Pressac based his claim of 'three holes in a straight line' from this photo. I too think it's a stretch. As for the 2004 report, I question how this can be published with little to no substantial evidence. The report acknowledges that hole Z5 isn't even visible, but it's assumed to be there. It also presumes the other four 'marks' are square holes, even though only one (Z1) vaguely resembles a square. The rest appear to be mere dark spots.

I think the critical clue is the slanted-H shape (or parallelogram) and the corresponding arrangement of the four holes we see today. The 5100 and 7100 measurements suggest these were measured from the ground floor between the two walls in 1944. They likely did this to create a proportionally 'realistic' shape while avoiding the internal walls and ceiling beams (which there are many.)

HansHill wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2025 1:39 pm Forgot to address the rebar issue. And this is a feature at the Birkenau site also.

The presence of rebar alone demonstrates that they were not zyklon insertion holes and were cut away after the war in a sloppy attempt at post-war fabrication of evidence. In the case of Birkenau this is even more strongly demonstrated as the rebar is bent back seemingly by hand, and would be a physical impediment to the secure fastening of the non-existent Kula columns.

I'm assuming the rebar is temporary rebar installed when they were patching the holes up? Thanks for the Mattogno reference. I wasn't aware, and I've since updated my findings.

As for the floor drain, well that's something else. I did some more investigation, and found subsequent floor drains in the washroom (we knew about that), storage, entry and oven room. Given that these are often linked through a shared drainage system, this would pose a problem if toxic gas fumes entered one drain.

Devil's advocate argument about the floor drains.

They will say, the drains are p trapped, so, no problem.