The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: camps/auschwitz/photo-evidence

From Fri Apr 12 12:06:08 PDT 1996
Article: 30697 of alt.revisionism
From: (Mark Van Alstine)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: - Air Photo Evidence p.45.jpg (0/1) Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars...
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 20:04:55 -0700
Organization: rbi software systems
Lines: 306
References:  <4kcn0r$>  <4kdbv3$>  <4keras$>  <4khkkc$>
X-Newsreader: Yet Another NewsWatcher 2.0.5b5

In article <4khkkc$>, (Matt Giwer) wrote:

> (Mark Van Alstine) wrote:


> >Like this will make it bigger Giwer? Once one establishes the scale metric
> >for the photograph that metric will not change simply because you wish it
> >to. 
>         What it changes is starting from written descriptions of the size of
> the room and then estimating, but it reall makes little difference.
> Considering they are supposed to be 30 feet apart, they are still at
> least 10 feet in the largest dimension.

And the source for your "written descriptions of the size of the room," please? 


> >Then I suppose there is also no reason to assume that the dark rectangles
> >on the roof of the L.Keller denote the vents as well? 
>         I originally posted that the labeling in the pictures was fanciful and
> that they clearly were not "vents" but then people have to keep
> insisting that they are.  Of course you don't remember reading that do
> you?  A problem with your server?

More like a problem with you. The pictures I have referenced don't have
the vents labelled. The descriptions of the vents and their presence on
the roof of L.Keller 1 can also been had from eyewitness testimony. Oops,
forgot about that didn't you? 

> >Or that if we chose that they do, we make ascribe them any dimensions that 
> >pleases us? 
>  Only a size in proportion to other objects in the picture of course.    

Then that would make them about 1 meter or so. However, as Dr. Keren has
rightly pointed out, the images of the vents show a gradient, indicating
that they are probably smaller. 
> >So much for scientific methodology! What next? Back astrological portents
> >and scrying entrails? Dunking maidens to see in they are witches or not?
> >Or, in a more contempory note, proclaiming Jews to be like vermin? Like a
> >typhus plague that must be exterminated before laying waste the "noble"
> >Ayran race?
> >Geeez.... Earth to Giwer! Come in Giwer!
> You can be as clever as you want, the sizes in the pictures are as I
> stated.  

No, Giwer, you can be as obtuse as YOU want, but the sizes you assert
exist only in your imagination. 


> The point of course is their size which is clearly on the order of
> what I said it was no matter what you are going to say about it.

No, it simply demonstrates that you know little about photo interpretation
or image processing. Not to mention how to use a ruler.


> >And you still haven't bothered to actually establish a metric and
> >_measure_ the vents? How typical. What a waste of time you are, Giwer. 
>  Of course I have established the building as a measure. 

And, as usual, screwed it up. All to fit your pre-convieved biases, I
might add.   


> Look at the picture that was posted here or post that picture here.

OK. So far, the one of better photos I've found that show the details of
the structures, vents, chimneys, and shadows of Kremas II and III is from
_Air Photo Evidence_ is:

Photo 12 (Krema II) and 13 (Krema III), p.45. (RG 373 Can F 5367, exp. 3185.)

It is attached to this post as a JPEG image.

> >Second, have YOU measured the angles of the shadows yourself? Or are you
> >just parroting what Ball wrote? In fact, I responded to you about exactly
> >this once before in the thread "Re: Another Krema picture":
> I have created a diagonal line parallel to that shadow using Photoshop
> and then moved that line to the vents.  They are clearly not the same.
> And the point of doing this is to show that they are not shadows.

Interesting, I have basically done much the same thing. Using the image
>from, I printed
out the image of Krema III and then measured the angles. By bi-secting the
Krema verically along the smokestack and then extending the line of the
chimney's  shadow so that it intersects it. I'll call the top of the
verticle axis that bisects the Krema 0 degrees and sweep the angle
clockwise (it makes mesuring with a protractor easier this way). I get an
angle 133 and 132.5 degrees for the two edges of the chimney's shadow.
Now, the vents are a bit harder. Calling the vent closest to the Krema
vent 1 and the furthest vent 4, I can only see discernable "shadow" edges
on vents 1, 3, and 4. Extending the line for the edges of the vents'
"shadows" I get an angles of 132 and 132 degrees for vent 1; 132 and 132
degrees for vent 3; and 133 and 133 degrees for vent 4.)

> But, even if they were, there is still something with one dimension at
> least 10 feet to cast it.

And how, _exactly_, did you determine this? 

> BTW:  Ball who?

John Ball. Author of _Air Photo Evidence_. He's a mineral exploration
geologist who has interpreted air photos. (Looking for minerals, I

> And I would suggest you learn how to use that "protractor" as anyone
> can look at the picture, even on the screen, and see there is a
> difference.

I did. There is no apprecible difference in the angles. 

> >> Thus they are again of very large size, larger than a man no 
> >> matter what they are.
> >No. As I've said before they measure out to about 1 meter in width 
> >(along the "edge" parallel to the width of L.Keller 1). If they were 
> >square that would mean 1 m x 1 m, which is close to the size of the 
> >introduction columns (70 cm x 70 cm).
> If they are one meter than the building itself is about 2 - 2.5 meters
> wide and the columns are on the order 2.5-3 meters apart. 

Okay, let's measure the building then. Measuring the length of Krema II
(the above ground structure), in Photo 12 on page 45 of _Air Photo_
Evidence_, along the peak of the roof I get about 37 mm. (It should be
noted that the roof appears to have a small overhang in various photos.)
The two floor plans of Krema II in _Anatomy_ (pp. 202-203,206-207),
Figures 14 and 16, give the length of Krema II as 58.5 m and 55.5 m,
respectively. Now, that should give us two metrics of 1 mm = 1.58 m and 1
mm = 1.5 m. 

Wich should we use? In _Anatomy_, p.200 we are told that the (inside)
dimensions of L.Keller 1 is 7 m x 30 m. The basement plan of Krema II on
pp. 204-205 (Figure 15) give the outside dimension of the width as 8 m,
implying that the walls are 0.5 m thick. The outside length therefore
should be 30.5 for L.Keller 1, as it abutts Krema II. Measuring the length
of L.Keller 1 from Photo 12, assuming L.Keller 1 doesn't extend beyond the
fence, we get 21 mm. Using our metrics, that's either about 33 m
(1mm:1.58m) or 31.5 m (1mm:1.5m) Let's use the 1mm:1.5m metric, as it is
closer. (As noted above the roof appears to have an overhang, making it a
bit longer than the floorplan dimensions. This mucks up our metric a

The really tricky part is trying to measure the vents. As noted by Dr.
Keren, the image of the vents appear as gradiated patches. They have a
dark center with surrounded by a lighter gray area. My assumption here is
that the lighter areas are part of the roof. Perhaps scuffed from use,
perhaps stained by ground in in (spent) Zylklon B from spillage when the
introduction devices were emptied. Perhaps the limitations of the film or
>from  the enlargement process. I don;t think they are shadows, however, as
all the shadows in the photos are crisp and black. Their boundries easily

Continuing on, in trying to measure the widths of the darkest portions of
the patches, I get, from closest to furthest from the Kremas, ~1mm,
~0.75mm, ~0.5mm, and ~0.75mm for Krema II (Photo 12). For Krema III (Photo
13) I get: ~1mm, ~0.8mm, ~0.8mm, ~0.75mm.  That's an average width of
about 0.8 mm, or 1.2 meters. 

Already, we can see that the vents aren't all that big. But let's continue.

Trying to measure the lengths of the darkest portions of the patches, I
get, from closest to furthest from the Kremas, ~2mm, ~2mm, ~1.75mm, and
~1.75mm for Krema II (Photo 12). For Krema III (Photo 13) I get: ~2.5mm,
~2mm, ~1.5mm, ~2.5mm. That's an average length of about 2 mm, or 3 meters.

Now, how much are shadows and how much are the vents, or "little
chimneys?" If the vents cast a shadow, which they should as they have been
describes as "little chimneys" and "short concrete pipes" jutting up from
the ground, the actual dimension should be even smaller. 

If the vent structures were square that would make them about 1 m x 1 m,
not counting their shadows. (As the width edge of the vents on Krema II's
L.Keller 1 face the sun, we can surmise that the average width doesn't
include much shadow.) 

As for as the spacing of the vents go, again, measuring from closest to
furthest from the Kremas, and center to center of the darkest portions, I
get: 3mm (from the edge of Krema II), 4mm, 6mm, and 5mm for Krema II.
That's 4.5m, 6m, 9m, and 7.5m. For Krema III I get (skipping from the edge
of the Krema III because of the shadow): 4mm, 4mm, and 5mm. That's 6m, 6m,
and 7.5m along the length. The vents on all appear to be offset by about
1mm, or 1.5 m, from the centerline of L.Keller 1. 

> You can have it any way you want but not both ways.

Remember that next time you babble on about the vents being "100 sq. feet." 


> >> You will also note these do not even have the same shape or
> >> irregularity of spacing as in K2. 
> >You would also not that thet are grainy enlargements that were taken from
> >about 27,000 ft. during WWII?
>         You will note that there is sufficient detail to show much small
> objects on the roof of the building as distinctly rectangular and
> regularly spaced.  You will also note that the building has very
> straight walls.  Those two points set the limit of both graininess and
> possible distortion of the negative.  

That also imply, then, that the irregular lighter section of the patches
are exactly that: irregular patches. This would also imply that the more
defined, and smalle, darker center is the vent structure. Sounds
reasonable to me. 

>  As for the altitude, there is no way to determine.

Of course, there is. It's called research. According to Martin Gilbert, in
_Auschwitz and the Allies_ (p.316): 

"The Monowitz raid of September 13 had lasted for only thirteen minutes,
>from  11.17 a.m. to 11.30. a.m. Ninety-six heavy bombers took part,
dropping just over a thousand 500-pound bombs from 24,000 feet.

"Like the raid of August 20, this one was also part of the continuing
Allied efforts to destroy Germany's synthetic oil production. According to
the interpretation of aerial photographs taken during the raid..."

So, the photos from September 13 were taken from 24,000 feet and not
27,000 feet. My mistake, I mis-remembered.

Now, on page 65 of _Air Photo Evidence_, photos from both the August 25
and the September 13 raids are shown. (Photo 6 and Photo7, respectively)
Measuring the lengths of Krema II, along the roof peaks, in both photos
they are both 23mm. I would think this tends to suggest that August 25
photo (Photo 6) was also taken from about 24,000 feet. 

> >As to their spacing, no they are not the same as Krema II. So what? I
> >don't recall that anybody has ever claimed they were. The furnaces in
> >Krema V were not _exactly_ the same as in Krema IV either. Yet they worked
> >the same. So to with the Zyclon B introduction devices.
> I pointed out they were both irregularly spaced and not in a straight
> line in either picture. I then also pointed out they a different
> irregularity in each. 

And I repeat: So? You obviously attach some significance to this. Care to

> And I note this is a discussion of II and III not of II and V.  

Giwer, Kremas IV and V didn't have underground gas chambers. Ergo, no vents.

> It has been stated by holohuggers here that II and III were made to
> the same design.  

Yes, the floorplans are the same, but flipped, in their layouts. So? 

> That they were of the same design is further supported by the small
> rectangular marks on the roof of the building being the same in both
> pictures.

Yes. So? 

> >[snip]
> >> And for reference, when I first posted the K3 picture, this was the
> >> commentary in the next message....
> >[snip]
> >I have reposted my previous reply to it under: "Re: Another Krema picture
> >(repost)" and have e-mailed it to you, Giwer.
> You know by now that email is a waste of bandwidth but you never learn.

Not quite, Giwer. When people post things, especially things that blow
your arguments out of the water, you seem to develop this "problem" with
you internet access. So, to make _sure_ you have the opportunity to read
the posts that bury your silly objections, I e-mail them to you. So far,
none I have sent have bounced, which should mean that they got to you.
Now, if _you_ chose to not read them before you throw them away that is
_your_ business. I don't really care. However, after extending every
opportuity to make sure you _could_ have read my posts, I will no longer
accept your pathetic excuses that you didn't see some post or another
because your newsserver went down, or you couldn't access it. 

No more of this "my dog ate my homework" bullshit from you, Junior. 



"Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes 
not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties--but
right through every human heart--and all human hearts." 

-- Alexander Solzhenitsyn, "The Gulag Archipelago"

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor

© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and to combat hatred. Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.