Tuesday, September 01, 2015

Eric Hunt's 3D Imagery of Crematorium 1

Eric Hunt's recent piece on the homicidal gas chamber of crematorium 1 in the Auschwitz main camp maintains that "a 3D representation of the important area of Crematorium 1 is useful to understand this hole hoax". Carolyn Yeager's blog announces that Hunt's "3D imagery demonstrates the Auschwitz Hole Hoax". Actually, Hunt's "3D imagery" does not really help to understand the distribution of openings in the roof of the gas chamber better than a 2D image. The 3D effect looks nice, but that's it. It does not add anything to the issue, which hasn't been already shown by the 2D images published by Carlo Mattogno in Auschwitz: Crematorium I, p. 124 and its ugly RODOH variants (but how a 3D image can actually help to understand something is shown here for the gas chamber of crematorium 2 in Birkenau).

As I have pointed out previously, the whole argument relies heavily on the reliability of a single blueprint. Furthermore, if anything, it would suggest that the Poles have not properly reconstructed the gas chamber and its gas openings after it was converted into a bomb shelter by the SS after the gassings were ceased in the Auschwitz main camp. In fact, some of the more competent and independent witnesses (Stanislaw Jankowski, Hans Stark and Hans Aumeier with his lower estimate) have provided a figure of 2 for the number openings, and not 4 as assumed by the Polish reconstruction. Aside this, there is even a possible motive for the precaution to place a gas opening directly next to the door, especially when lacking experience with the door's stability during mass murder with poison gas: to kill the victim next to the door first and shield it from attempts to get breached.

The argument brought forward by Mattogno raises some question on how the original gas chamber looked like and why it was made like this, but it does not demonstrate a hoax, not that the Poles have created anything to deceive nor that no homicidal gassings were carried out in crematorium 1.

11 comments:

Jeff said...

Hunt is back? I was under the impression that he had dropped off the map. His old websites have all gone dead, there was a thread at SSF addressing this and the consensus was that he simply ran out of cash and lost interest. I guess not.

He is the vilest revisionist out there and also the most easily refuted - His Treblinka doc was exposed as fraudulent as he had edited witness testimony in a highly dishonest way and fabricated evidence. His vid on KL Lublin was almost entirely based on a strawman. He displays symptoms of narcissism, paranoia, and a childlike mentality.

Keep up the good work.

The Black Rabbit of Inlé said...

Hans Sortie: "In fact, some of the more competent and independent witnesses (Stanislaw Jankowski, Hans Stark and Hans Aumeier with his lower estimate) have provided a figure of 2 for the number openings, and not 4 as assumed by the Polish reconstruction."

Mattogno: "These openings, in fact, numbered two according to Stanis aw Jankowski and Hans Stark, six according to Pery Broad and Filip Müller. For his part, Rudolf Höss, in the session of March 12, 1947, of his trial, speaks of only one such opening:" (Auschwitz Lies, p.343)

In fact, in fact, in fact. We have located the inspiration for your sentence Herr Sortie. But Aumeier said there were "2-3 Luftschächte", so telling your readers that he provided "the figure of 2", i.e. that he gave a precise figure—a low one, when he was clearly only approximating the number, is highly misleading.

It'll be tough for you to argue this was an accidental oversight, it looks deliberate.




Hans said...

At least Hunt is still asking for money (via Yeager):

"Eric Hunt has been banned from Paypal and his website "HolocaustHoaxMuseum" was removed by godaddy. However he can recieve donations at Google Wallet under the name "20thcenturyhoax@gmail.com" and also bitcoin. Please contribute if you can."

Donation practice seems to be rather poor among Revisionists, e.g. denierbud: "Maybe if some money came in I’d address other topics, but I don’t see contributions likely happening" (http://barnesreview.org/wp/archives/395)

I don't understand for what those Revisionist youtube activists need much money anyway. They are not performing money intensive research. It's mostly time to invest, which should be a pleasure to do if it is for what they say is the truth.

Jeff said...

He really is a crazy, unpleasant individual. At SSF he went on a temper tantrum after they exposed his fraudulent evidence. StatMech made an offhanded joke about being hearing impaired and Hunt then proceeded to use that little tidbit as a platform for some of the lamest insults I have ever seen. He made all kinds of vicious antisemitic remarks and eventually accused us of being "stool pigeons for Rabbi Bernbaum" or something like that. He really came off as a delusional schizophrenic asshole. And stupid.

Arthur Crump said...

Yes, it looks like Eric, fresh from his own personal gassing experience ( much ridiculed on Rodoh ) has bounced back with a re-hash of Mattogno's theories on the holes of crem 1. Nothing new really, just the same old. Maybe the exposure to aforementioned gassing in his flat has had a negative affect on his creativity!!

Sorry if the next bit may offend, but does anyone else on here believe Mattogno deserves a teeny weeny bit of credit for presenting a strong case that at least 2 ( if not all) of those current holes were not re-opened originals ?

I say 'at least 2' because I think we have to agree that the 4 holes as a group do not match the original layout of the morgue ( and the matching distances of each hole does suggest something fishy has gone on), but taken individually, 2 of them may have been original, but the Poles then could have made 2 new ones based on the other 2 holes' measurements from the ceiling edge, if you see what I mean?

If this was the case, it may mean that the 'official' story needs correcting slightly, but I guess it's not too an important issue to most well balanced sane individuals anyway. It would be only a certain mentally unbalanced section of society that would use this as proof of 'no gassings'.

Anyway,I guess it's only the law of averages that out of all the books, articles and research that he has been involved in, that at some stage he must have got at least one thing err....half right?

Hans said...

The Black Rabbit of Inlé said...:

"In fact, in fact, in fact. We have located the inspiration for your sentence Herr Sortie. But Aumeier said there were "2-3 Luftschächte", so telling your readers that he provided "the figure of 2", i.e. that he gave a precise figure—a low one, when he was clearly only approximating the number, is highly misleading.

It'll be tough for you to argue this was an accidental oversight, it looks deliberate."


There is no oversight to begin with. Aumeier estimated 2-3 openings in the gas chamber of crematorium 1 and I wrote that "his lower estimate" was 2, which is exactly what it is. The lower estimate of 2-3 is 2. It's just like this. There is nothing misleading other than your false accusation.

Kudos to Nessie, for exposing the Lesser Bunny's nonsense over there at RODOH (https://rodoh.info/forum/viewtopic.php?p=66009#p66009 ).

Hans said...

The Lesser Bunny at RODOH:

"Herr Sortie's overall claim about witnesses who claimed 2 holes, was clearly inspired by something Mattogno wrote, but he opted not to mention the authorities who claimed there were six, or just one."

https://rodoh.info/forum/viewtopic.php?p=65995#p65995

The posting on Hunt was only summary of a more detailed treatement I was refering the reader to:

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.de/2014/11/rebuttal-of-mattogno-on-auschwitz-part.html

Since this was a rebuttal of Mattogno, I was naturally also studying the sources cited by him (plus more he did not know) and looking into his argument. If that's what's supposed to make me getting "clearly inspired by him", it only shows that I was taking the task to rebut Mattogno seriously.

In this more detailed treatment I also briefly addressed the testimonies on six holes.

I did not into account Höß' testimony for the number issue since he only provided a description of how "an opening" was made for the first gassing in his court examination in Poland. This does not contradict that another hole may have been added afterwards. The hypothesis that there was only one hole during the whole existence and use of the gas chamber can be discarded based on Jankowski, Stark and Aumeier. Moreover, Höß himself spoke of "several holes" and "openings" (plural) earlier in his memoirs. Höß may have been sloppy in his formulation during his court examination in Poland. But given the ignorance of many Holocaust deniers to understand even the most simple things as the Lesser Bunny has just demonstrated on Aumeier, I understand that it may be helpfull to explain this.

Note also that I cited Aumeier's full estimate of 2-3 in this more detailed treatment. Think about it, if I deliberately wanted to mislead the reader that Aumeier only stated 2 openings, I would not have sent the reader to this blog posting. Let aside that I would not have explained it was "his lower estimate", which implies that there is a different, higher estimate. But explain this to a Bunny.

Hans said...

Arthur Crump said...:

"Sorry if the next bit may offend, but does anyone else on here believe Mattogno deserves a teeny weeny bit of credit for presenting a strong case that at least 2 ( if not all) of those current holes were not re-opened originals ?"

The weak link in his argument is still that it relies on the reliability of a single blueprint. That's nothing I would like to build a strong case on. Suppose the blueprint was not up to date on this section of the crematorium, because it was not relevant for the purpose of the drawing. But I give him credit for raising some good question. And the published testimonial evidence is certainly in favour of a lower number of openings.

I wonder how much Mattogno, with his command of relevant languages and seemingly endless time he invested to gather and read sources, could have achieved if he only dropped this dumb denial mode once a while over some common sense.

Hans said...

Hans said...:

"If that's what's supposed to make me getting "clearly inspired by him", it only shows that I was taking the task to rebut Mattogno seriously."

Just before the Lesser Bunny is making much ado about nothing again, the closing quotation mark should be behind 'inspired'. Normally, I would not bother to correct such irrelevant typo - provided you talk to decent and reasonable people, and not to the Lesser Bunny with his history of ridiculously false accusations to distract from the real issue.

Arthur Crump said...

Hans said :

"The weak link in his argument is still that it relies on the reliability of a single blueprint"

I believe by this you're referring to the 10.04.42 plan, which shows a wall dividing the morgue from the washroom. Are you saying that there was a possibility that this wall was not there during the 'gassing period' ? And also that the washroom was not there, but was just an extension of the morgue area where gassings occurred ? Obviously if that was the case, then yes,the 4 holes 'alignment' issue would not be relevant.

Sorry if I've got the wrong end of the stick here, Hans. I was just curious as to what blueprint you were referring to, and was seeking further clarification as to what you were suggesting.

Hans said...

Hi Arthur,

Yes, this is at least a possible scenario that cannot be excluded based on the available evidence.

So there is this drawing of April 1942, which shows the wall between the washing room and morgue. I'm not aware of any other piece of evidence to corroborate this (maybe there is one, then it should be brought into the debate). But relying on a single piece of evidence is risky. It’s a "built-as drawing" and therefore it should be fairly reliable. Still, the opposite cannot be rigorously excluded. Perhaps the wall between the washing room and morgue was teared off when the gassings were carried out. The drawing might have had a specific purpose for which updating the gassing tract was irrelevant or ignored deliberately. Perhaps the four hole configuration was implemented after the drawing was made with a teared off wall between washing room morgue. There is some more evidence needed to really make a solid case here. Like some eyewitnesses who confirm the layout of this drawing for the relevant period. This would greatly enhance its reliability.

Aside, the odd and uneven distribution of the present openings is not even compelling itself that it was made by the Poles for the two room configuration and not by the Germans for the three room configuration. The implementation of the gas openings may not have been planned and carried out very well. It may have been a quick and dirty solution. They may have started with the hole close to the door, then realized they need another one, drilled the opening on the other side still close to the washing room. Then somebody complained about the uneven distribution and they added the ones in the back to compensate this. That might not appear rational, but there is no reason why the implementation of the holes had to be thoroughly rational. It may have included highly irrational elements.

The reconstruction of the openings at the Auschwitz State Museum may very well be false. I'm not disagreeing there is some reason to think so. But the main argument for me is not their distribution (which was probably uneven in either case, suggesting a quick and dirty solution by the Schutzhaftlagerführung and Political Department, see Mattogno’s map of the available candidates in ACI, p. 124; this is in contrast to the gas openings at crematoria 2 & 3 which were obviously carefully planned and implemented by the contruction office), but rather that it’s insufficiently supported by the available testimonial evidence. Presently, we have only two witnesses on four openings, Ignacy Golik and Edward Pys, who testified in 1964 and 1959 respectively, too late to neglect they may have been influenced by the Auschwitz State Museum reconstruction themselves (and they were both living in Poland at the time). Moreover, they only saw the scene from some distance from the SS sickbay, but not directly from the crematorium site. These witnesses are neither very competent nor necessarily independent (as opposed to Jankowski, Stark and Aumeier). Perhaps the Auschwitz State Museum has some more accounts on four gas openings from competent witnesses early after the liberation, this might change the situation, but such do not exist in the present debate.