If Auschwitz "gas chambers" were "bomb shelters", how do revisionists explain the holes?

[mengelemyth]

In another thread, Wetzelrad raised a question as to why the 'air raid sheltered' hypothesis isn't taken seriously.

How do revisionists explain Kremas 2 and 3 having holes in the ceiling? Other than to argue they did not exist? "No holes, no holocaust"

Do some revisionists accept their existence, and have an alternative explanation?

John C Ball's analysis seems to have problems. Quoting Eric Hunt:

Ball’s concluding paragraph on the alleged crematory “forgeries”, we see the stunning hoops and contradictions Revisionists jump through to make their thesis fit. The beginning of Ball’s concluding paragraph states that because of the supposed “poor quality of the forgeries on these air photos it is not likely that the alterations were added by a government agency or the CIA itself.” Two sentences later, John Ball ends the same paragraph with extreme paranoia, insinuating that Brugioni himself (of the CIA) doctored the photographs.

“Brugnioni, the same author from the CIA who in 1979 published the air photos of Auschwitz,[18] published a book about “photographic deception and manipulation“, exposing himself as an expert on making and/or recognizing faked pictures.[24] Mysteriously, he discusses the photo criticized here in his chapter on how to detect faked photos – of course without claiming that it was altered. Is that really a coincidence?”

In addition, Ball only analyzed the American photographs, not the South African surveillance photos which also show four holes over both Crematoriums two and three. They are remarkably consistent despite being taken in sequence at varying distances. Photographs from the second camera of the South African mosquito plane which flew over Birkenau was only recently uncovered in British archives. It’s highly unlikely the CIA or Brugioni forged those too. Ball clearly isn’t anywhere near the expert he claims he is, as Brugioni commented about the grain of the film being consistent over the alleged forged holes, etc., the type of hard evidence which one would expect to be shown and analyzed by even an amateur photographer.

Revisionists never properly analyzed the various aerial photographs from numerous countries’ surveillance planes, and proved the holes in the roofs of Kremas 2 and 3 were doctored into the original negatives. This is something entirely provable by expert examination of modified physical negatives. To create such a forgery, one would have to use acid, or scratch, perhaps with the head of a needle, (or other methods) the original physical negative. The negative material would be thinner, one would be removing or thinning dark areas on the negative, actually. But when printed into a positive or the typical printed photographs we see, this area would appear dark. This kind of tampering with the evidence should be easily provable. Simply calling “bullshit” on it won’t do.

Brugioni’s analysis is correct, he told the truth, and after all, the holes are still there. The claim that Brugioni himself doctored the photographs is defamatory and outrageous. Also read: http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... ce-on.html

Do revisionists on this forum still maintain that the holes did not exist? Or do some believe they existed, and have a better explanation?

And were other photographs also fabrications, despite the negatives existing? For example:

[Wahrheitssucher]

How do revisionists explain Kremas 2 and 3 having holes in the ceiling? Other than to argue they did not exist? "No holes, no holocaust"…

What a peculiar approach to truth you have!

A genuine, open-ended investigation should — and would — first start with the question: “are there holes in the roof?”

This approach of yours is instead starting like a simple-minded child asking “How do realists explain the tooth fairies replacing our milk teeth — that myself and my siblings DEFINITELY left under our pillows — with coins? Other than to argue the tooth fairies do not exist?”

Do you see?

The proper way to make an enquiry into historical truth is to see if the legally-protected and enforced mass-gassing narrative can be falsified. That is the scientific approach.

Whereas, to start with a firm belief in the narrative’s credibility and then try to buttress those aspects that seem most easily supportable, is the approach of a ‘true believer’.

I presume you are aware, the roofs still exist.

Zyklon-B introduction devices

Several German wartime camps are said to have had homicidal gas chambers in which Zyklon B was used for mass murder.
For most of them, the way Zyklon B is said to have been introduced is uncontested.
The situation is different for the claimed homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz, and here in particular for the morgues of Crematoria II and III at Auschwitz-Birkenau. The following list pertains to this very room.
[a list is presented of named eye-witnesses/lie-witnesses and their stated method of delivery]

As each entry for these witnesses demonstrate, all their testimonies are filled with exaggerations, inventions, impossible claims and distortions. Hence, none of these witnesses are trustworthy. Therefore, there is no reason to give any of the claimed methods of introducing Zyklon B precedence over the others. Even more so since there exists no material or documental trace for any Zyklon-B introduction device or method. Furthermore, detailed investigations of the ruins of Morgue #1 of Crematorium II have demonstrated that the holes claimed by many to have been used to throw in Zyklon B (or to attach any claimed introduction devices, columns or pillars) did not exist during the war.

The holes which can be found in the collapsed roof of this morgue were hacked in after it had been completed, and most likely after it had been blown up at the war’s end. By the time these roofs were cast (early 1943), there either had been a plan in place for a long time to exterminate the Jews, or there was no such plan. If a plan existed, these buildings would have been planned accordingly, with predefined holes when the roofs were cast. Since no such holes exist, there was no plan to have such holes. Hence, there was no plan to exterminate Jews as it is claimed today.

Since the turn of the millennium, after decades of indifference regarding the many contradictory claims in this regard, the orthodoxy has come to a consensus that the wire-mesh columns described in detail by Michał Kula, and in a similar, yet less detailed way also by Henryk Tauber and Josef Sackar, were the devices used, and that all other witnesses erred or lied. The reason for this decision is that Kula’s devices would have allowed the removal of Zyklon B pellets from the columns. This, in turn, would have allowed a faster ventilation of the alleged gas chamber, which is a pivotal requirement for the credibility of frequent claims that the gas-chamber doors were opened a short while after the end of the execution. This choice is therefore a clear case of confirmation bias.

https://encyclopedia.historiography-pro ... index.html

A link has been provided for you to familiarise yourself with the detailed argument… if you are genuinely seeking clarification and are not here under a pretence.

[Stubble]

Emergency egress.

That photograph, it doesn't show what you think it shows. Those are concrete forms. There are no photographs of holes in the roof of the morgues at kremas II and III.

If you would entertain a question from me, if the people describing the event that occurred all witnessed the event, how do you explain all of the holes in the narrative?

I mean, people who say they worked with the murder weapon for a year have wildly divergent descriptions of how it was constructed and how it operated.

It is analogous to someone telling you they operated a piece of equipment for a year, but not being able to turn it on or operate it. Then half a dozen other people telling you they ran it for a year and also not being able to operate it. Then having the group disagree about how the machine operates as well...

[HansHill]

Germar Rudolf in HH Vol 2 The Chemistry of Auschwitz makes a compelling case for the extant holes being cut after the war.

I invite the curious reader to review section 5.4.1.2.8 of HH2 The Chemistry of Auschwitz.

In brief, his argument centers around the physical condition of the extant holes and the expected behavior from an engineering and structural perspective of exerted forces on a structure. That these holes lack the damage and stress that is expected to accrue to a structure under severe force (blast) he concludes that the holes were not present when the blasts occurred and were therefor cut later, ie after the war.

[Stubble]

As always Herr Hill, you are absolutely correct. I feel a need to clarify hy answer above yours.

I read the query as 'if' 'then'. In an 'if' 'then' scenario, emergency egress is a perfectly acceptable answer.

I too belive the holes were made post war to access the site and retrieve samples. Unfortunately, Jan did not properly document where he made his access holes, although, unless I am mistaken, he does mention making them.

[Wetzelrad]

In another thread, Wetzelrad raised a question as to why the 'air raid sheltered' hypothesis isn't taken seriously.

How do revisionists explain Kremas 2 and 3 having holes in the ceiling?

Yet again you are strawmanning. Perhaps you could read and respond to what I actually wrote. My question was why the two loose doors found in 1945 were assumed to be gas chamber doors instead of (delousing doors or) air raid shelter doors, as they share obvious similiarities to the doors with peepholes that were installed on the air raid shelter of what was previously Crematorium I.

Instead the museums and historians have totally ignored this obvious possibility, opting instead to build a cockamimie conspiracy theory that the loose doors were removed from homicidal gas chambers as part of a cover up and then left sitting around to be found by the Allies.

I had to correct you on this because I don't like being pigeonholed into your pre-determined lanes of conversation.

[Callafangers]

How do revisionists explain Kremas 2 and 3 having holes in the ceiling? Other than to argue they did not exist? "No holes, no holocaust"

Uh-oh, mengelemyth, it looks like you might be another rabbi seething his way around the CODOH Forum. Sad.

Jokes aside, let's keep in mind that you need to explain all of the evidence simultaneously, not just that which you find most convenient for your position. Thus, you not only have to consider the boxes or crates shown on this roof (notice the one further right clearly being similar size/shape and not part of the arrangement on the alleged 'chamber'):

boxes.jpg (37.89 KiB) Viewed 19 times

...you also have to explain this along with these clearly-falsified air photos of the same alleged 'holes' (shows Krema II and III as of 1944):

1944.jpg (265.17 KiB) Viewed 19 times

If the 'holes' above are faked, who faked them? How did they fake them? Why did they fake them, and why would they need to, if the holes were already in fact present?

You need to answer all of these questions together, simultaneously. Your impressions about boxes on a roof mean nothing until you do.