Kingfisher wrote:Those odd marks don't look a bit like groups of people, in addition to being on the roof, so I don't think they can have been drawn in. If they had, whoever did it would certainly have made a better job of it. They look like some kind of handling artefact, which was then, either deliberately or from confirmation bias, mislabeled by the CIA. Impossible to be certain, but that's the impression I get.
Denierbud has pointed out how the CIA inherited personnel from the wartime OSS, and this could be significant. Even though the same persons might not be there by 1979, they would have influenced the culture, and anyway, at that time no one doubted the Holocaust story.
They got clear confirmation bias in their work. But my guess is that the forgers and interpreters would still be two different people. The interpreter, would indeed believe that what he saw on the pictures are traces of some homicidal gassing program. That'll make him sound more credible.
It's anyway the mode of operation of the Holocaust industry to make use of proxies that were made to believe in an (1)extermination program, (2) that involved homicidal gas chambers, (3) achieved to kill six million Jews. The initial story tellers would quickly become suspect, since with some of the "witnesses" or rather narrators, you can hear from their voice and see from their gesticulation that they are habitual liars.
Here is a photo:
The Zyklon B hatches are asymmetrical and definitely look drawn in. But with confirmation bias that may even be overlooked by an expert interpreter. Even if you assume that those were marks from real objects, it can not be assumed out of hand, that those are hatches. They could be shadows or coloring from other objects like boxes with building materials, even people standing on the roofs for some reasons.
A good interpreter would have pointed out all those possibilities and assigned probabilities to each possibility. They didn't do that, but jumped to conclusions. It's the "convergence of evidence" ploy gone wrong. Essentially it is bad conjecture. Because none on the Holocaustian side of the argument ever deals with the role of psychological warfare and spreading of rumors to sabotage and smear the enemy during war time. They make as if this didn't really happen at all. The problem for them is that the Allies actually were documenting doing exactly that.
