Pon's Auschwitz Aerial photographs

[Lamprecht]

As I understand it the building of Crematoria II was rushed (as was the subsequent crematorias), this in conjunction with the need to have a low profile (it should look as if it was made for something else than gassing) might be the reason for the less than excellent but still efficient for its purpose design.

It could have been done better in the same amount of time. There's no excuse. The entire story is totally ridiculous.

And no, it was not "Efficient" at all. Quite the contrary. Please start a thread detailing exactly how you think the alleged gassings worked, Pon.

I would also like to see more pictures of the holes, my guess is that it is the lower rebar that is bent into the concrete, I'd like to see a better image showing that, but anyone can go there to look at it themselves so I guess it is just a matter of time before such a image comes up (maybe there is a image somewhere showing that already). It doesn't suggest, in itself, anything sinister, but it proves that it wasn't tampered with which makes it important.

How does it prove that it wasn't tampered with? What if I went up to the hole right now and smashed a different part of it with a sledgehammer? I don't see your point.

You can repeat your claim, it doesn't make it true, obviously if physical evidence shows that the holes were less than 50 on each side then the columns had to be also (or at least the part that protruded through the roof). Why would he know the exact figures, he made a estimate, obviously physical fact trumps estimates.

The Kula columns are alleged to go up through the holes, and are 70x70 cm wide. Therefore, that ridiculous Kula column could not have fit in the alleged holes. That's a fact.

The "columns" did not exist, and never existed. What would it take to convince you that, Pon? Is it even possible?

There is no documentary or physical evidence of these 'columns' and you can't even describe them. There's just a few random, contradicting "eyewitness testimony" that mentions them, and they have otherwise proven themselves to be unreliable witnesses. I urge you to make a thread on any witness to these alleged devices that you think is credible.

You talk about "physical fact" but there is no device for us to see; We don't have an actual example of the alleged physical device; just contradictory drawings by a small number of people. we can't talk about any "physical facts" beyond the actual fact that a 70 x 70 cm device cannot physically fit in a 50 x 50 cm hole.

For a fact, one hole was made after liberation

Ok, so you claim today there are 4 holes, and [at least] one was made after liberation. Therefore, there would have only been 3 holes originally. And yet, you claim that the one aerial photo (contradicted by the others) proves the modern holes were made during/before the period jews were allegedly being gassed in the buildings, even though it has 4 *spots* alleged to be zyklon-b induction holes.

It doesn't make sense, Pon.
The holes were OBVIOUSLY caused by the roof being broken, anyone can see that looking at them. If the Germans made them while pouring the concrete, the holes would be geometric squares/rectangles and no jagged edges like that. Someone smashed the holes in, or they were produced when the building collapsed.

The "gas chamber" use seems to be a late addition, why would they bend the bar?

Maybe it was already bent and they didn't care. The majority of the bars are not bent into the concrete, why didn't they do that?

There's just no reason, in the image where they lay the roof of the undressing room no bars are seen to be bent.

There doesn't have to be a reason. Why would a bent bar even matter enough to be unbent? How do we know, for sure, the bars were bent and the holes existed exactly in those spots before the camp was "liberated"? We don't. You even admit the smudges are not the holes, or, rather, they are the holes + much more (but that implies necessarily that they could also not even holes in the first place.

The damage when it was demolished could have damaged the holes so that it looks like they have been smashed in with a hammer (also explaining why the bent bars protrude through).

So they must have been less than 50 cm already. These holes would have been too small to see in the aerial photos.

According to the report they do line up, attention has to be made that the roof shifted and parts of it rotated, it is perfectly explained in the report.

I agree, the report says that. But according to the actual physical reality that we live in, they do not. And the report is demolished by the links I have posted. It has been perfectly refuted in the links I posted.

[Lamprecht]

That book was made in 2002, the report on the holes was made in 2004, the simple explanation is that he just didn't know yet that the holes had been found.

I don't buy this excuse at all. The holes would have been there the entire time, for decades. He had visited the site himself and inspected it.

https://i.imgur.com/lrnlM4Q.jpg - In this photo the marks can be seen on "gas chamber III". That not all photos show the details is probably because of exposure,

I have merged the two images and animated it. See below:



The marks on the left look similar, but on the right, one of the photos does not have the marks added to the alleged 'homicidal gas chamber'. Yes, the caption is slightly obscuring the building, but the marks would still necessarily be visible in the part that is not obscured; that is, if the marks reflected something that was actually present at Auschwitz in both of these periods.
And of course, in the others that I have posted, there are no marks. But recently you have said that the marks are not from the alleged induction holes, but from the Germans walking around there or whatever.

if it was so important for them to fake it, then why weren't they faked on all the photos?

It is not very important at all, actually. I don't think this is a very important topic. Like I said, you can check my posts in the past, I don't ever concern myself with these aerial photos which actually do not support your goofy narrative anyway, except when you go to such extreme levels of mental gymnastics such as this, making excuses for any discrepancy. They clearly don't correspond to the holes we see today, which have been tampered with anyway.

If they were faked to "prove" the induction holes, all they need is one or two. The lack of holes on the other one doesn't matter for the deception as anyone can contrive some ridiculous "excuse" which is exactly what you're doing here. Maybe the images were already released at that point. I don't really care. The lack of markings on the other photos doesn't help your case at all, simple as that.

If we subvert that narrative then he probably would have spotted if they were fake. That someone writes about it doesn't mean that he himself would succumb to faking photos, at least not of this historical importance.

How could you possibly know that he believes they are not faked? You really don't. Even if he did think they were, he has no reason to come out and say it. Possibly, he was even the one that drew the patches himself.

[Pon]

As I understand it the building of Crematoria II was rushed (as was the subsequent crematorias), this in conjunction with the need to have a low profile (it should look as if it was made for something else than gassing) might be the reason for the less than excellent but still efficient for its purpose design.

It could have been done better in the same amount of time. There's no excuse. The entire story is totally ridiculous.

And no, it was not "Efficient" at all. Quite the contrary. Please start a thread detailing exactly how you think the alleged gassings worked, Pon.

I've already stated how I think the gassings worked in the derailed prussian blue thread. Maybe I can respond to an already existed thread. Maybe it could have been made different, maybe not, at the time there were a lot of byrocratical difficulties and difficulties with getting allowance to build, that's also a different thread I guess but it's simply not as clear-cut as you make it seem.

I would also like to see more pictures of the holes, my guess is that it is the lower rebar that is bent into the concrete, I'd like to see a better image showing that, but anyone can go there to look at it themselves so I guess it is just a matter of time before such a image comes up (maybe there is a image somewhere showing that already). It doesn't suggest, in itself, anything sinister, but it proves that it wasn't tampered with which makes it important.

How does it prove that it wasn't tampered with? What if I went up to the hole right now and smashed a different part of it with a sledgehammer? I don't see your point.

It shows that the hole was planned at least since the beginning of filling with concrete, as the rebar was bent and cut at that time to make place for the hole.

You can repeat your claim, it doesn't make it true, obviously if physical evidence shows that the holes were less than 50 on each side then the columns had to be also (or at least the part that protruded through the roof). Why would he know the exact figures, he made a estimate, obviously physical fact trumps estimates.

The Kula columns are alleged to go up through the holes, and are 70x70 cm wide. Therefore, that ridiculous Kula column could not have fit in the alleged holes. That's a fact.

The "columns" did not exist, and never existed. What would it take to convince you that, Pon? Is it even possible?

There is no documentary or physical evidence of these 'columns' and you can't even describe them. There's just a few random, contradicting "eyewitness testimony" that mentions them, and they have otherwise proven themselves to be unreliable witnesses. I urge you to make a thread on any witness to these alleged devices that you think is credible.

You talk about "physical fact" but there is no device for us to see; We don't have an actual example of the alleged physical device; just contradictory drawings by a small number of people. we can't talk about any "physical facts" beyond the actual fact that a 70 x 70 cm device cannot physically fit in a 50 x 50 cm hole.

Any witness, be it the pope himself, is unreliable and will get details wrong, it's something to be expected of witnesses, the longer the time since the experience the more unreliable the memory gets, that doesn't mean that if a detail is wrong the entire statement is thrown out the window, I can see that you know even less about witnesses than I do, let this to the experts is my advice.

For a fact, one hole was made after liberation

Ok, so you claim today there are 4 holes, and [at least] one was made after liberation. Therefore, there would have only been 3 holes originally. And yet, you claim that the one aerial photo (contradicted by the others) proves the modern holes were made during/before the period jews were allegedly being gassed in the buildings, even though it has 4 *spots* alleged to be zyklon-b induction holes.

It doesn't make sense, Pon.
The holes were OBVIOUSLY caused by the roof being broken, anyone can see that looking at them. If the Germans made them while pouring the concrete, the holes would be geometric squares/rectangles and no jagged edges like that. Someone smashed the holes in, or they were produced when the building collapsed.

No, there are four holes (one is hidden underneath the rubble), three of which are accounted for (named 1,2,4 in the report), there is though a fourth hole that can be seen which is known to have been produced after liberation by someone curious to see what was underneath. Confusing, yes, but that's the way it is (and I guess part of the confusion is that they labeled the third hole that has been found as number 4, as that is the order of the hole as it would have been on the roof).

The "gas chamber" use seems to be a late addition, why would they bend the bar?

Maybe it was already bent and they didn't care. The majority of the bars are not bent into the concrete, why didn't they do that?

They obviously were but was revealed due to the damage of the explosion, do you really think those bars would just have stuck out like that? It is just confirmation that the edges around the holes were destroyed by the explosion. The particular explosion was powerful enough to lift the roof and shift it! In fact, revisionists used to say that holes are weak spots and that cracks should be visible in the vicinity of the holes, what if there were not only cracks but the edges collapsed? As far as I know cracks has been spotted around those holes mentioned in the paper.

There's just no reason, in the image where they lay the roof of the undressing room no bars are seen to be bent.

There doesn't have to be a reason. Why would a bent bar even matter enough to be unbent? How do we know, for sure, the bars were bent and the holes existed exactly in those spots before the camp was "liberated"? We don't. You even admit the smudges are not the holes, or, rather, they are the holes + much more (but that implies necessarily that they could also not even holes in the first place.

The reason we know that is again that the bar was bent into the concrete. I have been a bit unclear about the holes, no one (except maybe the ones that tagged the photos) is saying that the smudges are the actual holes, they are indications of the holes though as they clearly show the zig-zag pattern that are tell-tale signs of the holes. The resolution is too low for the actual holes to be visible, at first the thought they were shadows cast by the vents, but that seems unviable as the shadows would be too large and the vents probably didn't stick out of the dirt that much. The most viable explanation of the smudges is that it is the ground is being disturbed by the constant activity around the holes.

The damage when it was demolished could have damaged the holes so that it looks like they have been smashed in with a hammer (also explaining why the bent bars protrude through).

So they must have been less than 50 cm already. These holes would have been too small to see in the aerial photos.

The holes would already be too small to see in the aerial photos even if they were 70 cm, no one has ever said that they were the holes themselves, they said they were the vents (casting shadows), it has been shown that the shadows would be far to large though (if there weren't a temporary construction around the vents), there has been speculation that, if the smudges are shadows, that they could show the inner part of the introduction column taken out and placed on the roof near the chimneys. I still think the best explanation is disturbance of the dirt on the roof around the chimneys though.

According to the report they do line up, attention has to be made that the roof shifted and parts of it rotated, it is perfectly explained in the report.

I agree, the report says that. But according to the actual physical reality that we live in, they do not. And the report is demolished by the links I have posted. It has been perfectly refuted in the links I posted.

I don't think it is demolished at all, each argument can be explained (and I think I have explained a lot of them already), I thought the paper was actually really well made and each step was easy to follow and see how it relates to physical reality (including how the roof shifted and "warped"), it would of course be best if a expert answered the complaints about the paper instead of a layman like me, but still I don't think the arguments show any more reality than the paper.

[Pon]

According to the narrative, two alleged holes were present on each side of the central beam of morgue 1. However, Germar Rudolf pointed out that air photos show the four dark spots all on the same side of the central beam for the Morgue 1 of Krema II

https://imgur.com/c9b84vi

That can be easily dismissed as the dark spots obviously aren't the holes themselves but indications of the holes, could be explained with that the germans were predominently on one side of the chimney disturbing the ground beneath them more on that side, that would shift the impression of the holes to were the germans were mainly standing. It just isn't a good argument.

You're not making any sense here. So the alleged holes themselves are not visible from the aerial photos, or they are? Which one is it Pon?

Exactly, they are not the holes themselves, but indications of the holes. Any conflict in my description of that is simply due to simplifying on my part (it's just cumbersome to every time write indications of holes, instead of just holes), I have, however, explained that the smudges are not the holes themselves.

Exterminationist Provan claims that it is wrong to see these marks as vents, and they may be faked:

On the next page, Provan states "we are hesitant to use the aerial photographs as proof that there were roof vents for Zyklon B"

Yes, because it hadn't been confirmed that the they were not fakes, even I thought some things on those photos could be fakes, but I have recently been convinced otherwise when I understood that there's a second set of them (each photo is a stereoscopic pair), in fact, when they examined it using stereoscopic techniques a small speck stuck out slightly in each of the smudges, possibly being the chimney (stereoscopy may reveal things that are too small to be resolved), that too is no definite proof and anyone would be hesitant to use it as it can be explained away, but it doesn't disprove anything either and does fit the greater picture.

It is a bit hard to see, it is actually reminding me more of the roof of gas chamber III, either way it corresponds to the zig-zag pattern and my guess is that although it's hard to see the roof on gas chamber II was similar to that of gas chamber III, although perhaps placed closer to the center, we are though studying dots more or less so we can't say for sure.

This is the image in question: download/file.php?id=1381&mode=view

I do not see any holes, much less zig zags. Please show us the holes. Then again, you just said the dark spots were not the holes themselves, but would be the Germans "disturbing the ground" around the holes, which are invisible? you're grasping at straws here Pon. The images can not prove the existence of the alleged holes if the holes would not be normally visible in the aerial photograps.

If you crop the relevant part of the image and blow it up in size, there's just no trace of any holes, Pon:

That wasn't the image in the OP. I agree that not all images show the traces of the holes. The image I posted in the OP was the image that showed the crowd not seeming to be standing on the roof, which was overexposed (making the lighter regions brighter than normal), the image where the crowd seemed to stand on the roof was underexposed making the black regions bleed unto the roof. In that image traces of the holes indeed could be seen. In several photos one can see the zig-zag pattern.

Well, they don't know the details of that so we don't know how it worked, I'm sure they figured it out though, it wouldn't be that hard to build a frame around the hole and attach it to that. I didn't even need to stretch my imagination.

How do you know they didn't just drop the pellets in if you want to believe it so badly? There's not any proof that any Jew was gassed, actually. Hence why you must resort to such silly documents and photographs.

In fact, why didn't the witnesses state that instead? If they wanted to be deceptive why invent a kula column? Why state something that could have been explained in a much easier way? It's actually something that sparks credibility, not the other way around.

We only have witness accounts which are to a degree unreliable, there is however many such accounts from different people (not only jews) which makes it credible that there was comumns, the unreliability is mainly in the details.

No, that doesn't make them any more credible. If I lie about you, and then convince my friends also to lie about you, that doesn't make our lies any more credible.
Please post a thread on any "witness accounts" you think are credible, Pon.

There are actually very few accounts of htese ridiculous devices, the vast majority of Auschwitz testimonies (over 95%) don't mention gassing at all, and the very few that do mostly do not mention such devices whatsoever.

Obviously not all the "inmates" were close to the gas-chambers, those that could testify about gas-chambers were the victims of them, except for the sonder-kommando and a few that got to be near the gas-chambers for whatever reason. The testimonies come from a lot of different sources, very little chance that they "got together" and agreed on the story. I honestly don't think the "kula columns" would be mentioned by so many different people if they didn't exist. One would wonder (if they actually weren't there) could they have mistaken them for something else? But what would that be?

I guess you know next to nothing of how to judge witnesses just like me so best leave it to the experts on how to judge the witness accounts, it's just silly trying as a layman to determine the credibility, but I do know that when a witness account corroborates with evidence

I don't buy this at all, Pon. Firstly, I can use my own brain to judge witness accounts. If you think a particular witness account detailing these alleged "Devices" is credible, please make a thread on that.

That's the thing, you think you can, but in fact you are just being ignorant of a lot of details that forensic experts and psychologists do know about when it comes to testimonies.

You're talking about "Experts" - but please define what an "expert" is in this context. You're not making any sense, Pon. How are the revisionists who have published multiple books on this topic, at great personal cost to themselves, somehow not "experts" but you can find some Jew or other politically motivated person and they become an "expert"?

If your arguments are sound, they should be easy to defend.

I don't consider the authors of any of those books to be experts on everything, maybe they are historians? It isn't up to them to judge the witness reliability but refer to experts that have judged how reliable they are.

Anyone aside from those with photographic memory would be unreliable in various degrees, if you ask me to detail what I did yesterday I would probably get the basic things right, but maybe I had a different color on my shirt, maybe I thought I had eaten broccoli while it was actually the day before that I ate broccoli. You might see that anyone can make mistakes without intent, especially if they are going to detail things happening a long time ago. Because of that the earliest witnesses are of course deemed more reliable than those that stepped forward years later. They also have to examine each witness statement as to how they correspond to the avilable evidence, and how they correspond to eachother. It's simply not as simple as you think.

especially evidence that person couldn't have known (the inventory document,

The laughable document which has been demolished above. There is no document ordering Zyklon-B be used to murder Jews. That document isn't even for the alleged gas chamber room.

It is telling that you think that is what it takes to "demolish" something. It is simply casting doubt to it, offering a different explanation. Nothing else.

earial photos showing zig-zag placement of the holes)

Except they actually do not, as shown above. You just keep repeating this despite that it has been refuted. You also even said the aerial photo doesn't show the holes, but rather "indications of the holes" from the Germans "disturbing the ground beneath them" where "the germans were mainly standing" rather than the holes.

And you ignore the aerial photos with absolutely no holes. Ouch

Were they mainly standing? Where did I say that, not that I think they ran circles around the chimneys like some christmas tree dance, but I do think they moved around in the vicinity of the chimney in order to insert the zyklon-b.

then it is taken seriously.

Which "witness account" do you take seriously? Please make a thread on that, Pon

Any witness account that isn't obviously wrong. I explained a bit above how I would do it, but forensic psychologists and interrogation experts could tell you much better.

Also why would several witnesses mention wire-mesh columns? Wasn't the popular belief that the gas came from the showers?

Why would someone lie against their enemy if they could easily get away with it? What is revenge? Why would anyone ever say something that is not true? Even if you think the "wire mesh" mentioning eyewitnesses were 100% honest, you are forced to admit that various other eyewitnesses lied. In fact, Jewish historian, Auschwitz survivor & Yad Vashem archives director admitted that the majority of jewish testimonies of the "Holocaust" are, in fact, "unreliable". Another Jew has claimed that Holocaust testimonies are probably the least reliable of all, for various reasons. I encourage you to make a thread on your "eyewitness".

I agree, they were witnesses to some horrible things, trauma can do all sorts of things to memories, therefor it is important to be careful when investigating the stories.

At least I thought they did before looking closer at it. It seems such a out-of-place thing to invent and pretty ridiculous to think that many people have invented the same thing unrelated to eachother (there are people from many walks of life mentioning these things).

Not really, Pon. These individuals were at the same camp, allegedly all "Sonderkommando" and they were Jews. They had plenty of time to work together and agree on some laughable story.

Not all were Jews that told of the column.

What is truly "out-of-place" is the absurd alleged device and room. The nazis weren't so stupid to use something so ineffective. They could have done it a lot better.

What would they have done better? Without revealing it to be a gas chamber that is? They had to be very careful in that regard.


[EDIT:

Part of Pon's post has been split off and moved into this thread: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12767&p=94130#p94130

Webmaster]

[Lamprecht]

I've already stated how I think the gassings worked in the derailed prussian blue thread. Maybe I can respond to an already existed thread. Maybe it could have been made different, maybe not, at the time there were a lot of byrocratical difficulties and difficulties with getting allowance to build, that's also a different thread I guess but it's simply not as clear-cut as you make it seem.

It certainly could have been done a lot more efficiently, but sure. It seems like you're deviating quite far from the "Official" story, so I would like you to make your own thread, or respond to another one about it.

It shows that the hole was planned at least since the beginning of filling with concrete, as the rebar was bent and cut at that time to make place for the hole.

Not really at all. Once again there is no clear picture of this specific rebar that was bent into the concrete. All you posted were a bunch of small images and you can't really see it.
Additionally, what would actually prove that the "hole was planned" the moment they started pouring concrete would be, in fact, an actual hole. The Germans were very efficient at making actual holes in concrete, we have various examples of this. Why would they pour a thick slab of concrete and then bust a hole in it afterwards? It makes absolutely no sense. Also, rebars have been cut since the end of the war, as shown in the links above. Mattogno has shown pictures where they were cut sometime after he took them in the 1990s.

Any witness, be it the pope himself, is unreliable and will get details wrong, it's something to be expected of witnesses, the longer the time since the experience the more unreliable the memory gets, that doesn't mean that if a detail is wrong the entire statement is thrown out the window, I can see that you know even less about witnesses than I do, let this to the experts is my advice.

I responded here: viewtopic.php?p=94138#p94138

No, there are four holes (one is hidden underneath the rubble), three of which are accounted for (named 1,2,4 in the report), there is though a fourth hole that can be seen which is known to have been produced after liberation by someone curious to see what was underneath. Confusing, yes, but that's the way it is (and I guess part of the confusion is that they labeled the third hole that has been found as number 4, as that is the order of the hole as it would have been on the roof).

There are actually more like 12 holes, and the "study" that you cling so dearly to just cherry picked four of them that supposedly corresponded to the drawings / 3-meter markings/smudges on a few of the aerial photos

Maybe it was already bent and they didn't care. The majority of the bars are not bent into the concrete, why didn't they do that?

They obviously were but was revealed due to the damage of the explosion, do you really think those bars would just have stuck out like that?

That is just absurd, that's not how explosions work. We have examples of ACTUAL HOLES that were made when the concrete was poured, of exploded buildings. Nothing of the sort can be observed.
If they planned to make holes on the gas chamber ceiling, it would look like these holes:


Ceiling of the oven room of crematorium III. Second ventilation opening (seen from the west). June 1990


Ceiling of the oven room of crematorium III. First ventilation opening (seen from the west)

As for changing holes (cutting the rebar):


Concrete roof of morgue 1 [alleged "gas chamber"] of crematorium II in Birkenau. Opening 7 in October 1991.


Concrete roof of morgue 1 of crematorium II in Birkenau. Opening 7 in August 2000

Simple logic dictates: If they wanted the holes there as they were building it, they would have made the holes as they poured the concrete

It is just confirmation that the edges around the holes were destroyed by the explosion. The particular explosion was powerful enough to lift the roof and shift it! In fact, revisionists used to say that holes are weak spots and that cracks should be visible in the vicinity of the holes, what if there were not only cracks but the edges collapsed? As far as I know cracks has been spotted around those holes mentioned in the paper.

It is not confirmation of that at all, because you have not actually established the existence of alleged holes prior to the camp's liberation.
There is, in fact, no photograph of a hole on the roof. The aerial photos are clearly not, as you admit, photos of the holes in the roof. The smudges/marks are so large that even if the holes truly existed, the majority of the dark spot would be something else.

The reason we know that is again that the bar was bent into the concrete.

You have not confirmed this, you just keep repeating yourself. Why is this one bar bent and not the others? Show us a close up photo of the bar actually bent into the concrete, please. Please explain why you believe it couldn't have just been already bent

I have been a bit unclear about the holes, no one (except maybe the ones that tagged the photos) is saying that the smudges are the actual holes, they are indications of the holes though as they clearly show the zig-zag pattern that are tell-tale signs of the holes. The resolution is too low for the actual holes to be visible, at first the thought they were shadows cast by the vents, but that seems unviable as the shadows would be too large and the vents probably didn't stick out of the dirt that much.

Or they are just marks, or something else. You can find any pattern of holes when you cherry pick fewer than half of the holes in a broken ceiling.
Also the holes found do not even correspond to the holes in the photographs, as shown in various images which you ignored.

The most viable explanation of the smudges is that it is the ground is being disturbed by the constant activity around the holes.

No, that's actually totally ridiculous. You only insist it because it fits your story. There would be smudges all over the roof in some pattern in that case. But even more visible would be marks from the alleged **THOUSANDS** of victims walking into the gas chambers. There would be huge marks on the ground in that case, but there are not. So it certainly cannot be due to "constant activity around the holes" as there would be only a small amount of activity near the holes compared to the alleged activity of the jews marching to the building to be gassed.
The most viable explanation is that someone marked some enormous [in terms of the size it would correspond to in real life] smudges as "gas chamber holes" or there was some objects sitting there.

The holes would already be too small to see in the aerial photos even if they were 70 cm, no one has ever said that they were the holes themselves, they said they were the vents (casting shadows), it has been shown that the shadows would be far to large though (if there weren't a temporary construction around the vents), there has been speculation that, if the smudges are shadows, that they could show the inner part of the introduction column taken out and placed on the roof near the chimneys. I still think the best explanation is disturbance of the dirt on the roof around the chimneys though.

Then why is there no disturbance in spots which would have had more traffic? And why isn't the disturbance connected? It's just in splotches. Seems like a weak story. Even Provan said they were probably added later.

I don't think it is demolished at all, each argument can be explained (and I think I have explained a lot of them already), I thought the paper was actually really well made and each step was easy to follow and see how it relates to physical reality (including how the roof shifted and "warped"), it would of course be best if a expert answered the complaints about the paper instead of a layman like me, but still I don't think the arguments show any more reality than the paper.

Ah yes, the so-called "Experts". When are you going to think for yourself Pon? You haven't even defined what an "Expert" is in this case.
Are you aware of the fallacy known as "Appeal to authority"?

[Lamprecht]

Exactly, they are not the holes themselves, but indications of the holes. Any conflict in my description of that is simply due to simplifying on my part (it's just cumbersome to every time write indications of holes, instead of just holes), I have, however, explained that the smudges are not the holes themselves.

But that makes no sense, you keep repeating yourself.
If people walking around in places made those dark marks, there would be darker marks elsewhere. The would not be in that specific pattern, they would be connected. It's just a silly theory. The marks were added later or there was some other object[s] there, it's quite obvious. They don't fit any footstep pattern.

Yes, because it hadn't been confirmed that the they were not fakes, even I thought some things on those photos could be fakes, but I have recently been convinced otherwise when I understood that there's a second set of them (each photo is a stereoscopic pair),

OK please show me where it has been confirmed that they are not fakes. Show me the actual visual evidence.

in fact, when they examined it using stereoscopic techniques a small speck stuck out slightly in each of the smudges, possibly being the chimney (stereoscopy may reveal things that are too small to be resolved), that too is no definite proof and anyone would be hesitant to use it as it can be explained away, but it doesn't disprove anything either and does fit the greater picture.

Who is "They"? Have you, personally, seen these specks?
If not, you're pretending to have witnessed something you did not actually witness. You're absolutely sure about the existence of something you have not actually seen with your own eyes. But how?

How do you know they didn't just drop the pellets in if you want to believe it so badly? There's not any proof that any Jew was gassed, actually. Hence why you must resort to such silly documents and photographs.

In fact, why didn't the witnesses state that instead?

Some did, some didn't. It's that simple. There's actually less proof for a "Kula column" than there is for bigfoot or witchcraft/sorcery or alien abductions. There's actually many times more eyewitness testimony of these things than for Auschwitz gassings.

Eyewitness testimony is the lowest form of evidence in existence. "Holocaust" testimony is perhaps the least reliable of any due to various arguments provided here, the other thread, and elsewhere, including by Jews.

If they wanted to be deceptive why invent a kula column?

Well it seems to have worked for a large number of people, therefore the proof is in the pudding.

Why state something that could have been explained in a much easier way? It's actually something that sparks credibility, not the other way around.

Exactly, a good lie is supposed to spark credibility. They had a lot of time and a lot of smart people to help them figure out the lie they were going to go with.

And, conversely, why would the Nazis have used these ridiculous gas chambers and crematoria when it could have been done in a much easier and more effective way?

You're really trying to pretend that "Some people lied" is harder to believe than "Some people shoved hundreds of thousands into primitive, makeshift gas chambers and cremated almost all of them in crude, individual oven muffles."

Obviously not all the "inmates" were close to the gas-chambers, those that could testify about gas-chambers were the victims of them, except for the sonder-kommando and a few that got to be near the gas-chambers for whatever reason.

Ah, yes, those Sonderkommando who were supposed to be killed every 4 months to keep the secret, but somehow the Nazis forgot to do it for a large number

The testimonies come from a lot of different sources, very little chance that they "got together" and agreed on the story.

You have been specifically challenged in this thread:
Challenge to Believer 'Pon' on so called "Eyewitnesses"
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12767

There's actually a very big chance that many testimonies were influenced by other people. They had quite a bit of time to prepare them. Also, the various testimonies vary wildly in the details, you're just cherry picking the ones that seem to agree with each other on certain details and ignoring the rest.

I honestly don't think the "kula columns" would be mentioned by so many different people if they didn't exist. One would wonder (if they actually weren't there) could they have mistaken them for something else? But what would that be?

They weren't actually mentioned by all that many people, but I think it's far easier to believe that, say, a dozen or so people could tell similar lies than hundreds of thosuands of jews being shoved into gas chambers via a 'secret order' but somehow there is no actual physical evidence to substantiate this. The "Holes" are completely absurd. The ferrocyanide traces are insignificant. The structure was totally ridiculous for the purpose. And, of course, the total lack of documentary evidence for such a massive operation.

I don't think they mistaked anything, I think they were just lying. They agreed upon some sort of lie, and went with it. This sort of thing happens all of the time. It's why eyewitness testimony is the lowest form of evidence. People can and do say literally anything.

How could so many people describe a very similar bigfoot? Or alien abductions? Or witchcraft/sorcery?
This isn't hard to believe, it's not unique.

I don't buy this at all, Pon. Firstly, I can use my own brain to judge witness accounts. If you think a particular witness account detailing these alleged "Devices" is credible, please make a thread on that.

That's the thing, you think you can, but in fact you are just being ignorant of a lot of details that forensic experts and psychologists do know about when it comes to testimonies.

What details, Pon?

Seems like you keep resorting to the "Appeal to authority" fallacy, without basis. It's like your entire argument is:
"Some smart people proved it somewhere, we should trust anything they say, they are experts!"

I'm not buying it.

I don't consider the authors of any of those books to be experts on everything, maybe they are historians? It isn't up to them to judge the witness reliability but refer to experts that have judged how reliable they are.

You're not making one bit of sense, Pon. That's not how it works. The truth about science and history are not determined by a 'consensus of experts'.

In many countries it is ILLEGAL to "deny the Holocaust" so no 'expert' will ever come to that conclusion. Any 'expert' who "denies the Holocaust" will, automatically, lose their "expert" status. Your reasoning is circular and it's defended using the no true scotsman fallacy. The appeal to authority is a non sequitur.

Anyone aside from those with photographic memory would be unreliable in various degrees, if you ask me to detail what I did yesterday I would probably get the basic things right, but maybe I had a different color on my shirt, maybe I thought I had eaten broccoli while it was actually the day before that I ate broccoli. You might see that anyone can make mistakes without intent, especially if they are going to detail things happening a long time ago. Because of that the earliest witnesses are of course deemed more reliable than those that stepped forward years later. They also have to examine each witness statement as to how they correspond to the avilable evidence, and how they correspond to eachother. It's simply not as simple as you think.

It's not what you think either, Pon. Show me these alleged cross-examined witnesses in the other thread where their claims were corroborated with the "Available evidence". And, also, prove they would have been charged with perjury for lying.

Challenge to Believer 'Pon' on so called "Eyewitnesses"
viewtopic.php?t=12767

You're making a huge leap of faith. You're pretending as though the "War crimes trials" were some highly effective methods for finding truth, with very rigorous standards of evidence. You know, like a regular court case. Unfortunately, this is absolutely not the case. One could more readily call these trials "Show trials" and various academics and law experts around the world, even "Holocaust believers" did that very thing. I suggest the following threads:

The Trial of Dr. Bruno Tesch
viewtopic.php?t=12602

Nuremberg - Fair Trial or Show Trial ?
viewtopic.php?t=11053

Has any Jewish "Holocaust" witnesses been charged with perjury in a war crimes trial?
viewtopic.php?t=12762


Justice Robert Jackson explains:
"As a military tribunal, this Tribunal is a continuation of the war effort of the Allied nations. As an International Tribunal, it is not bound by the procedural and substantive refinements of our respective judicial or constitutional systems."

Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Harlan Fiske Stone remarked:
"Jackson is away conducting his high-grade lynching party in Nuremberg. I don’t mind what he does to the Nazis, but I hate to see the pretense that he is running a court and proceeding according to common law. This is a little too sanctimonious a fraud to meet my old-fashioned ideas."

U.S. Congressional Representative, Lawrence H. Smith of Wisconsin said:
"The Nuremberg Trials are so repugnant to the Anglo-Saxon principles of justice that we must forever be ashamed of that page in our history."

U.S. Senator Robert A. Taft:
About this whole judgment there is the spirit of vengeance, and vengeance is seldom justice. The hanging of the eleven men convicted will be a blot on the American record which we will long regret. In these trials we have accepted the Russian idea of the purpose of trials -- government policy and not justice -- with little relation to Anglo-Saxon heritage. By clothing policy in the forms of legal procedure, we may discredit the whole idea of justice in Europe for years to come.

Note: Taft was later praised by president John F. Kennedy for his devotion to principle during a time of widespread anti-German hysteria, in his award-winning best seller, 'Profiles in Courage'.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas:
"I thought at the time and still think that the Nuremberg trials were unprincipled. Law was created ex post facto to suit the passion and clamor of the time."

Edgar N. Eisenhower, American Attorney, brother of President Dwight D. Eisenhower:
"I think the Nuremberg trials are a black page in the history of the world...I discussed the legality of these trials with some of the lawyers and some of the judges who participated therein. They did not attempt to justify their action on any legal ground, but rested their position on the fact that in their opinion, the parties convicted were guilty...This action is contrary to the fundamental laws under which this country has lived for many hundreds of years, and I think cannot be justified by any line of reasoning."

Rear Admiral, U.S.N. Dan V. Gallery:
"This kangaroo court at Nuremberg was officially known as the 'International Military Tribunal.' That name is a libel on the military profession. The tribunal was not a military one in any sense. The only military men among the judges were the Russians.... At Nuremberg, mankind and our present civilization were on trial, with men whose own hands were bloody sitting on the judges' seats. One of the judges came from the country which committed the Katyn Forest massacre and produced an array of witnesses to swear at Nuremberg that the Germans had done it."

Do those individuals reach your standard of "Expert"? Something you have never defined, of course

[Lamprecht]

What would they have done better? Without revealing it to be a gas chamber that is? They had to be very careful in that regard.

I guess this is a topic for another thread, but anyway: How could they have exterminated Jews more efficiently than what is claimed?

First, I will ask: Can YOU think of a more effective method of killing people in gas chambers with Zyklon-B than pouring it down wire mesh columns? If not, you have essentially explained how, even if the handful of "eyewitnesses" who claim to have witnessed Auschwitz gassings were lying, many of them would have described some sort of device like this. Perhaps, it seems obvious if you know a bit about Zyklon-B, as in, that it is in the form of pellets that evaporate. Back then they would not have had the internet to look these things up. In other cases, they were likely just repeating what they had heard, or were coaxed into giving this testimony.

Anyway, to answer: Conveyor belt exterminations. Massive cremations, like the four story continuous operation furnace that was never built. Using individual ovens for this purpose is absurd. See:
Auschwitz cremation ovens and the "four-story continuous operation corpse incineration oven" never built
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12778



The thing is, you believe millions of gassed jews occurred. So you're not looking at this from some blank or objective perspective, as in "Someone wants to kill millions of people. This is how they intend to do it. What do you think of the effectiveness of this method?"
You're already invested in the story, and you believe 1+ million were killed in this way at Auschwitz, therefore, it must have been efficient. Except, of course, that did not really happen; and it is circular thinking to use this line of reasoning. You're starting with the conclusion already decided upon, and then subjecting yourself to confirmation bias.

Anyway, to use Zyklon-B pellets for this is just laughable. But if they wanted to, they would have needed to blow hot air on it, with something like the following device:


The device even had a can opener and poured the pellets down, which were then blown with hot air to cause them to outgas quickly. For someone to slow the Zyklon-B pellets in the supposed 'Kula columns' from outgassing, they would have just had to urinate on them.

They also would have had some sort of assembly line so people did not manually have to drag the corpses. And the 'gas chamber' would not have been below the crematorium, so they could have used gravity to move the bodies into the furnace. Maybe they could have used some industrial size meat grinder. Instead, they used some 4x9 foot manually drawn elevator! 500,000 people allegedly pulled up on that elevator, Pon. That's the actual story.

There is also the issue with the totally inefficient ventilation system:
Pressac’s Solution – Gas Chamber Ventilation
viewtopic.php?t=5493#p92090


The thing is, they knew all of this. They had built totally efficient Zyklon-B delousing chambers. To make a "Homicidal gas chamber" they just could have made them larger. But instead, they supposedly stuck to some ridiculous design to make life many times harder on themselves, and make the entire operation incredibly inefficient.

But really, if you're going for efficiency, you're just going to use bullets. Why do you think in absolutely no claimed genocides or mass murders in the history of the world were 'homicidal gas chambers' ever employed? Because bullets are far cheaper and far more effective.

[david2923]

What are the building design benefits or payoff of having the gas chamber room in the basement and furnace/burn pit one level up (Crema 2 and 3)?
gas them in the basement and they must be transferred in an upward direction.

[Pia Kahn]

I just read the above discussion. I find it astonishing that none of these arguments are new. The Holocaust orthodoxy hasn't come up with any new and truly convincing arguments over the past 20 years or more although hundreds of millions of dollars are poored into Holocaust remembrance, research, museums all over the world. But a bunch of ragtag revisionists can stand up against thousands of orthodox researchers and tons of cash and give them a run for their money. A truly astonishing feat.