HMSendeavour wrote:He also has some document here, I remember when he was first on twitter attempting to push documents which where phoney.
Mirror:
https://pic8.co/sh/rYnkht.pngMight as well refute this one for old times sake. Any takers?
What is there to refute besides his interpretation? Look at the quality, I doubt he can decipher it. He almost certainly didn't read/translate the document himself.
Arguing that documents are forgeries (
which the USSR was notorious for), unless it's plainly obvious only gives ammunition to critics of revisionism; especially when the USSR is not the source of the document, although I wouldn't put it past the USA, UK, etc. It is an indisputable fact that documents have been faked/forged/whatever, but we must look at each one individually and not dismiss it outright unless it is just simply preposterous. We can also demand physical evidence to confirm it... good luck with that.
Despite the
abundance of documentation supporting the "Denier" position (in contrast to the orthodox narrative) if you question the authenticity of a single dubious document -- you have, in their mind, just dismissed all inconvenient documents as forgeries. Basically "I don't like what it says, it must be fake!"
That is not rational: unless you were physically there and know what happened at that time/date/place, but we were not.
Some documents, when cherry-picked, can appear "incriminating" (or consistent with a particular theory) when they are not. Meanwhile, hypocritical exterminationists just dismiss the
totality of documentation showing a lack of extermination policy, often invoking the deceptive "code words" or "they destroyed the documents" conspiracy theories.
This is the 31 March 1943 letter, supposedly by Bischoff written to the office of the Deutsche Ausrüstungswerke (DAW; German Equipment Works, an SS enterprise):
mirror:
https://pic8.co/sh/zN9wcQ.jpegFrom the book:
https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... 0436.shtml or
https://web.archive.org/web/20180709211 ... 0436.shtmlAlso, Photo 33 on page 452, which seems to be a different scan;
mirror:
https://pic8.co/sh/YNQISA.jpegI can't find a better quality version of the document; If someone can find the complete, full transcript of this document or a high-resolution version, please post it. The inventory list on p. 430, a handwritten entry mentioning a gas-tight door only appears in crematorium II.
The supposedly incriminating part is:
"Bei dieser Gelegenheit wird an einen weiteren Auftrag vom 6.3.43 über Lieferung einer Gastür 100/192 für Leichenkeller I des Krematoriums III, BW 30a, erinnert, die genau nach Art und maß der Kellertür des gegenüberliegenden Krematoriums II mit Guckloch aus doppelt 8 - mm - Glas mit Gummidichtung und Beschlag auszuführen ist. Dieser Auftrag ist also besonders dringend anzusehen."
"On this occasion we are reminded of another order from 6.3.43 for the delivery of a gas door 100/192 for morgue I of crematorium III, BW 30a, which exactly matched the type and size of the cellar door of the opposite crematorium II with a peephole made of double 8 mm - glass with rubber seal and fitting must be used. This order is therefore particularly urgent."
Crowell points out that gas-tight doors were not rare at the time (WWII) and the optimal choice for air raid shelters would be the underground cellars; The peephole would be present so the people stuck inside could see outside, typical if not standard for air-raid shelter doors of the period.
Mirror:
https://pic8.co/sh/OKxNI2.gifIt would have made perfect sense to convert the cellars of Krema II and III into air-raid shelters, or at least install a door so that they could be used for that purpose if needed be. Despite this fact, half of Pressac's 34 "criminal traces" refer to "gastight doors."
From "Auschwitz Plain Facts":
"2.2. “Gasdichte Tür,” “Gastür” – Gas-Tight Door
In the context of the “Vergasungskeller” as a makeshift disinfestation chamber, discussed in the preceding chapter, the presence of a gas-tight door in Leichenkeller 1 was a perfectly normal matter. What is a little disturbing, at first sight, is the presence of a peephole with a protective grid, as one can see in Pressac’s photographs (1989, pp. 50, 232 and 486). The existence of this device has prompted the French historian to state that it “certainly belonged to a homicidal gas chamber in one of the four Birkenau Krematorien” (ibid., p. 486).
Actually, there is no proof that the door in question ever belonged to one of the Birkenau Crematoria. It was found in the Auschwitz Bauhof (materials yard) in which construction materials were stored. The gas-tight doors for Leichenkeller 1 of Crematoria II and III are described in the letter dated March 31, 1943 written by Bischoff to the office of the Deutsche Ausrüstungswerke (DAW; German Equipment Works, an SS enterprise). It refers to an order dated March 6 concerning a “gas door 100/192 for Leichenkeller 1 of Crematorium III, BW 30a,” which was to be fashioned “exactly like the cellar door of Crematorium II opposite in type and size, with peephole of double 8 mm glass, rubber seal and fixtures” (1989, p. 436). This description does not, in fact, mention the protective grid.
In 1945, a gas-tight door was found in the ruins of Crematorium V and photographed. It is presently preserved in the furnace hall of Crematorium I.99 Pressac comments on the photograph as follows (1989, photo 26 on p. 425):
“An almost intact gas-tight door found in the ruins of the western part of Krematorium V and presented by the man in shirt sleeves from Photo 24 (with the shaved neck). This door has no peephole even though it was used for homicidal gassings.”
In this way, Pressac demolishes his own “criminal trace,” i.e. the peephole with protective grid. It goes without saying that there is no proof that this door was used for homicidal gassings…
Pressac's document claims that a 100 cm × 192 cm door with a peep-hole was ordered for Morgue #1 (the "homicidal gas chamber[s]) of Crematoria II and III (which were basically mirror images).
But since the same kind of door was also ordered for the inmate sauna in building BW 5a (for hygienic and health reasons the inmates had a sauna; see pic) this merely shows that gas-tight doors do not prove any homicidal intent. (RGVA, 502-1-328, p. 70: “Herstellung von 2 Stck. Gasdichte Türen 100/200 für die Sauna.”)
In the final plan for Krema II, the size of the doors is drawn in as 190 cm × 170 cm, 30 cm narrower than on older plans. So, this gas-tight door would not have fit.
Germar Rudolf:
"Even if a peephole was not entirely necessary for a disinfestation chamber, it has nevertheless been proved that the disinfestation-chamber doors installed in Auschwitz were also equipped with just such peepholes, as shown in the photograph reproduced here (Figure 69; see Pressac 1989, pp. 46-50). Peepholes were in fact required for all disinfestation doors, because anyone entering a disinfestation chamber had to be observed by another person from the outside in order that, in case of an accident, help could be provided immediately."
I see no evidence that heavy, gastight, and escape-proof steel doors were ever installed at Krema III.
Consider the hypothetical:
I could go to the store and buy a knife, rope, duct tape, etc and a day or two later a person goes missing near my area (I live very close to the ocean). Since there are no clues, maybe the police would check to see the receipts of recent purchases. On mine, they find a knife, a rope, and a roll of duct tape. Here I would be a "prime suspect", despite being innocent and doing nothing. The reality is my knife was rusty and I wanted a new one, the rope (more like a nylon fishing stringer) is used as a pet toy, and as we all known duct tape has over 100 uses and is quite handy.So we cannot take things that are not inherently incriminating and say they are traces of a crime when the crime itself has not been thoroughly investigated due to legal and social sanctions.
