Denierbud "Viewer's guide to Auschwitz" and HC.

[Pikawa]

Did Denierbud ever respondent to this post by HC:
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... z.html?m=1

[Hektor]

Did Denierbud ever respondent to this post by HC:
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... z.html?m=1

Is there a good reason why he would have to?

I'd guess, if they made a good point this may be worthwhile. But from experience I know that 'good points' aren't exactly the area of expertise of "Holocaust Controversies". On the other hand blind chickens find a worm at times. So if they make a really good point, why not use it?

What I would expect from Holocaust Controversies would be to proof the core Holocaust Claims first. They never did do that, since nobody did. But that would at least be a basis for debate. But since they can't do that their speciality has become in 'fault finding' with Revisionist works. I'm already giving them credit there. Since mostly what they is trying to deconstruct a Revisionist argument or use circumstantial stuff at best.

But again. Pick the best point they are making and if it is really good, we can have a debate.

[Merlin300]

First of all, there is actually a possible technical reason for burying the execution sites under the earth - you dampen the screams of the victims.

??? Most of the various "gas chambers" were not buried. The morgues were covered with earth to insulate them. Putting "gas chambers"
underground is horrible "technical" planning; requiring excavations, waterproofing, elevators, drainage systems.

Here is what the Believer expert Pressac writes in Technique and Operation

BAULEITUNG DRAWING 933
Ground floor plan
Krematorium [Birkenau Krematorium II, BW 30], scale 1:100
Drawn on 19/1/42 b

Leichkeller 1.
Pg 279

Drawing 932. with corpse chute

The numbering of the three Leichenkeller, 1, 2, and 3 is not explained in any known German document. Judging by their arrangement around their source of supply, the corpse chute, and the ventilation shown on drawing 932, it is reasonable to suppose that:

a) Leichenkeller 3 was to be the reception morgue, where the prison numbers of the corpses would be recorded;
b) Leichenkeller 2 was to be temporary storage for newly arrived and recorded corpses awaiting cremation (delay of 3 or 4 days);
c) Leichenkeller 1 was to take corpses several days old, beginning to decompose and thus requiring the room to be well-ventilated, to be incinerated as soon as possible. [and insulated]

There is nothing on this drawing that indicates the future “special”use of this Krematorium. Quite the contrary, it looks a perfectly “normal”, though very high capacity, incineration facility. The arguments against Krematorium II having been planned from the outset as an instrument of extermination are as follows:

1. No access stairway from the exterior to the future undressing (Leichenkeller 2) [this absence is particularly visible on 932 (r), where the Soviets have tried to rectify the defect by adding some steps in the center of its west wall, which is incorrect, the actual location being more to the north]. What is more. the Krematorium was actually built without this stairway [photos neg. nos. 286 and 20995/493 for Krematorium III] which was added later; pg 284

This sketch, found on the bottom left of 932(r), is inversed with respect to the German inscriptions. The inscriptions on the sketch, which is a cross section of Leichenkeller 1, the gas chamber, of Krematorium II, are written in French This may be because in January 1945, the Soviet Commission investigating the crimes committed in Auschwitz Birkenau called upon educated former prisoners of various nationalities to act as consultants and explain the way the gas chambers worked, as this was not fully understood at that time. The Soviet film, “Chronicles of the Liberation of the camp, 1945” shows a group or medical men and academics, still in their prison uniform, guiding members of the Soviet Commission. Among them was a French doctor. Henri Limousin, who is perhaps the author of this sketch.