|Join Our Mailing List|
Holocaust gas chamber evidence denies itself
There were supposed to have been four buildings at Auschwitz-Birkenau that were facilities for mass extermination and which are referred to as Cremas II, III, IV, and V. Cremas II and III were identical to each other and each had two underground cellars of which one cellar in each is identified as a gas chamber. Cremas IV and V were built totally on the surface and had no cellars. Almost all the focus of attention about gas chambers at Birkenau centers on Crema II.
There are a number of photos on the circuit that show the cellar of Crema II. Some would be in aerial reconnaissance photos of Birkenau taken by the Allies where we can see four black blots on the cellar that are identified as the shadows of introduction ports for pouring in the fumigation pellets ("gas").
Then there are three ground level photos taken by the Germans themselves, one of which the Holocaust community refers to as corroborating evidence for the black blots on the aerial photos.
For easy reference and familiarity of the relevant photos mentioned click up this URL into another copy of Internet Explorer or Netscape – http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/intro-columns/ (A secondary treatment is attached below that deals with the subject by exclusively referring to the material we can find on the website)
The cellar ran North-South and connected perpendicular to the main surface structure near a south-western corner. Two thirds of it were underground and the top third above ground level. (See aerial recon photo and the ground shot.)
One ground shot taken during construction shows the cellar completed with its top third exposed. Nothing else at this time can be seen to be involved. Another photo would be a later shot of the building in the final stage of completion that shows 3 square upright images on the top of the cellar. (See photo.) These images are more or less in a straight line and about 2 to 2.5 feet high and about 1 1/2 feet on each side. (Whether or not these images in the photo were real or inserted via tampering need not be discussed at this time. Since we can only see three when the story has it four we are told that the fourth one was added on later.)
Then there is a photo that was taken some time later after the building was finished which shows that an earthen cover was added on. If we look closely at that picture we can just make out what appears to be two round objects about a foot across in line near the long axis and two more to the right near the edge. Thus the Holocaust authorities refer exclusively to the ground shot with the black upright images as proof the four black blots on the aerial photos are real and represent the ports. No need to discuss at this time how these black blots showing up on the aerial recon shots were introduced by way of tampering.
The cellars were 99 feet long. The black blots that show up on the Allied aerial photographs are said to be shadows of the upright ports and take up about two fifths of the length of the cellars and thus would make each blot about ten feet long\.
The lower the incident light source is on an object the longer the shadow. The higher overhead, the shorter the shadow. Directly over head and no shadow. The shadow of the large chimney of the crema is quite distinct in the aerial photos. With extant plans available we know how high the chimney was which allows us to calculate the ratio of shadow length to object height which seems to be about 1:1. Thus we cannot excuse the length of the alleged shadows as being the result of a low incident light source. While comparing the shadows lengths to the chimney shadow it's relevant to mention that the angles of the alleged shadows of the introduction ports do not correspond to the angle of the shadow we see for the chimney....which defies the laws of physics.
As mentioned, the height of the upright images on the photo taken during construction are about 2 feet high. In the words of Jean Claude Pressac, the elusive authority, "55 to 60 centimeters". Should we project these objects to the wall of the main structure we can see they should be about even with the window sills of the building. Looking at the ground shot with the earthen cover the top appears to be about 6 inches below the windows which would mean only a few inches to a foot of what we see in the other photo would have been visible after the dirt was added\.
In fact what we can conclude from comparing the two 'before and after' photos is that we shouldn't be seeing anything in the aerial shots since the only thing that would be there according to the ground photos would be a few inches to a foot of stack which wouldn't have shown up in the aerial photos as ten foot shadows\.
For the Holocaust prosecution to claim the marks on the ground shots are responsible for what we see in the aerial shots is like showing us a shadow of a Giant Redwood and telling us it was a bush that cast it.
For the Holocaust community the whole thing is a vicious circle since each photo must stand on its own and are not able to verify each other but only to stand as contradictions\.
Let us all bow our heads as we read this caption found in - Jean-Claude Pressac, Auschwitz: Technique and operation of the Gas Chambers - The Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, New York, 1989. p. 340: (PMO neg. no. 20995/494. The caption is found below the ground shot of the Crema II cellar that shows the upright images identified as the introduction stakes:
"The furnaces had not yet been working at full capacity because there are no soot stains on the collective chimney; Leichenkeller 1 has only 3 of the 4 openings for pouring Zyklon-B with which it was finally fitted. Rising about 55 or 60 cm above the roof, they were later covered to a depth of about 45 cm with gravel and earth, so that only 10 to 15 cm [ 4 to 6 inches] remained visible. This would explain why they did not stand out much when the grass grew and why they are so indistinct on the next Photo, though this seems to be in contradiction with aerial photos taken by the Americans in 1944 which show them to be higher."
Of course "higher" would mean they would have to have been some 9 feet higher in order for them to show up on the Allied photos as 10 foot shadows and Pressac expresses dismay that they show up in the photos as they do.
For a comprehensive presentation on the alleged introduction setups at Cremas II and III we have this URL located within the Website "The Holocaust History Project". This would be the same URL referred to above. http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/intro-columns/
Check it out. First take notice of the colored diagram of the alleged introduction system. Note the top part where we have the cross section of the cellar roof then an earthen cover and then the protruding part of the column extending above the earthen cover into the open. Note that this visible extension is labeled as being "15 cm " (inches). Making a quick adjustment for accuracy 15 cm is really 6 inches. So what we have is about 6 inches of column protruding above the earthen cover which would mean that only 6 inches would be visible. Now scroll down the page until you get to a Allied aerial photograph of the Birkenau complex which shows Cremas II and III where we can make out quite distinctly four black blobs situated on the cellars that extend out from the buildings. Extant plans of these facilities tell us the cellars were about 99 feet long. With that known measurement we can determine how long the black blobs are, which would be about ten (10) feet each. These black blobs are supposed to be shadows cast by the protruding columns. Thus with this presentation we have the Holocaust community itself giving us everything we need to realize they are telling us that an exposed object 6 inches high is casting a shadow 10 feet long.
One of the battle cries of Holocaust revisionists is 'No Holes, No Holocaust', and the Holocaust community has to resort to telling us something that defies the laws of physics in an effort to explain that the 'holes' were there.
Additional information about this document
|Title||Holocaust gas chamber evidence denies itself, It's a slam dunk|
|Dates||published: 2002-01-01, first posted on CODOH: June 29, 2002, 7 p.m., last revision: n/a|