Sunday, May 20, 2012

Review of the Debate on the Gas Openings at Crematoria 2 and 3 in Auschwitz - Part III : How it sums up

Part I: Evidence

Part II: Revisionist arguments

Part III: How it sums up  

As pointed out in the previous parts, there exists extensive and diversified evidence for the presence of gas introduction openings in the basements of crematoria 2 and 3 in Auschwitz Birkenau during its war-time operation:

28 witness accounts, 5 aerial photos, 1 ground photo, 1 contemporary document and the ruin with its 3 potential and suitable gas openings.

But even this is just the core of what points to the veracity of the story. Since gassing in the basements are only technically feasible via some kind of opening, any testimony on homicidal gassing in the crematoria 2 and 3, even when lacking details on specific gas introduction, is additional evidence as well.

This includes SS personnel such as Erich Mußfeldt, Pery Broad, Gerhard Wiebeck, Sonderkommandos Dov Paisikovic, Milton Buki, Shlomo Dragon, and civilian engineer Kurt Prüfer.

Furthermore, substantial documentary evidence on the installation of a gassing facility in the basements joins here too, including references to gassing cellar, undressing room/cellar, gas-tight doors, special treatment in the crematorium.

Pointing to an alternative interpretation (such as the cuboids on the ground photograph could be some construction material) does not overcome - metaphorically speaking - the "force" caused by corroborative and cumulative effects. The individual pieces of evidence are not laying isolated around and can be snipped away by just offering some hypothesis for each and think that settles the issue - they stick together more like with glue.

Revisionists need to show that they actually have an innocent (or no incriminating meaning) to solve the glue or attractive force between mutual corroborating evidence.

Thus, it is not enough to point out that the cuboids could be some construction material if the other evidence is ignored - because the additional evidence cannot be ignored. It belongs to the context of the evidence. It is still there and supporting a specific interpretation. Hence, it has to be shown that either the cuboids are construction material or at least that they cannot be gas introduction chimneys. Then - and only then - the ground photograph would vanish as positive evidence for gas introduction at the crematorium basement. Neither of which Mattogno succeeded to do.

Just in the same manner Mattogno failed to show that the wire mesh slide in devices are something else than gas introduction devices, he was unable to show that the dark spots on the basement on the aerial photographs are related to something else than the gas ports, he failed to show that the holes in the ruin were created incidentally, accidentally or fabricated after the Soviet liberation by purpose. And last - but not least - he failed to justify and explain the dismissal of the testimonial evidence.

Mattogno failed on each type of evidence to sustain that it does no serve as evidence to support the existence of gas introduction in the basements of crematoria 2 and 3 as shown in part I of this series.

Therefore, the evidence - testimonial, ground photographic, aerial photographic, documentary and physical - remains intact and strongly suggests that there had been four gas openings, gas introduction devices and chimneys at the basements of crematorium 2 and 3 to carry out homicidal gassings.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please read our Comments Policy