Aktion 1005 Was Not To Destroy Remains?

[Eye of Zyclone]

As for physical possibility, what they claimed is almost universally impossible. Diesel gassings, instantaneous gassings, instantaneous ventilation, Zyklon through shower heads, 5-minute cremations, etc. You've repeatedly avoided confronting these simple scientific facts, which shows you're just not serious about this debate. Instead you try to excuse impossibilities with logical blunders like this one:

You can illogically argue it was not possible, based on what ever calculations you want to make, or believe, all you want. Since it is evidenced and proven to have happened, then logically, it was possible.

I suspect that this fallacious logic would be out of place even among alien truthers, yet it is a standard rationale for Holocaust believers. Your statement neatly echoes this amusing classic quote from Pierre Vidal Naquet and thirty three other defenders of the narrative in 1979:

It is not necessary to ask oneself how, technically, such a mass murder was possible. It was technically possible because it happened.

But any objective thinker can see that this makes the evidence dependent on the conclusion instead of the other way around.

From Pr. Faurisson's website :

Three letters to Le Monde (1978-1979)

Presentation of May 8, 2000



In the very last days of the year 1978 the Faurisson affair exploded in France, an affair that, it may be said, had been smouldering since 1974 with the first attacks on Robert Faurisson in the French press for his revisionist views. The spark that set off this explosion on December 29, 1978 was the appearance in the national daily Le Monde of a text by the Professor entitled “Le ‘problème des chambres à gaz’ ou la rumeur d’Auschwitz”. In the same issue, that piece was accompanied by a set of antirevisionist articles amounting to a veritable barrage fire. Since the law provides for a “right of reply”, the Professor was able to answer that assault publicly by a letter printed in Le Monde of January 16, 1979. Several weeks later, on February 21, his opponents were offered the opportunity by the same paper to publish other pieces, among which a solemn “historians’ declaration” bearing thirty-four signatures. That text was drafted by Léon Poliakov and Pierre Vidal-Naquet. Its conclusion was disturbing. In reply to R. Faurisson, who had asked how the homicidal gassings imputed to the Germans of the Third Reich had been possible on the concrete, technical level (especially considering, on the one hand, the nature of Zyklon B ­– which is a pesticide –, the difficulties of ventilation when using hydrogen cyanide gas and the layout of the rooms presumed to have served as chemical slaughterhouses, and, on the other hand, the draconian safety measures that must be taken by the personnel of American penitentiaries for the execution of a single convict by means of the same gas), the thirty-four historians had this to say:

One must not ask oneself how, technically, such a mass murder was possible. It was possible technically, since it happened. That is the compulsory point of departure for any historical inquiry on this subject. It was our responsibility to recall this truth in simple terms: there is not, there cannot be any debate about the existence of the gas chambers.

Did such a conclusion not amount to surrender on the part of L. Poliakov, P. Vidal-Naquet and the other signatories?

Still, Faurisson, once again, on February 23, finding himself under fierce attack in the columns of the Monde, sent another “right of reply” piece to the daily which we entitle below: “One proof… one single proof”. Le Monde, doubtless alarmed at the size to which the affair was growing, refused to publish this text while at the same time inviting the Professor’s adversaries to carry on with their own offensive.

These three pieces are a landmark in the history of revisionism. Yet, although their existence is, assuredly, known of abroad, they seem not to have been published in any language besides French, except for some partial and flawed English and German translations.

Continued here

[Nessie]

Alien abduction witnesses, corroborate each other, but there is no other evidence to corroborate them. They are also making claims that are physically impossible to have happened.

Mass gassing witnesses, corroborate each other and there is other evidence to corroborate them. They are also making claims that are physically possible to have happened.

Wrong. Hence the need for antirevisionist laws (and other means of social pressure) throughout the so-called free world. Truth doesn't fear investigation and debate. But the Holohoax blatantly does.

I am not wrong to say alien abduction only has witness evidence, whereas the Holocaust has evidence from all sorts of sources. There are no anti-revisionist laws. There are some anti-denial laws. What you lot do, is deny, you just insist it is called revisionism.

Kremas I to V and two farm houses were identified as used for gassings. The Nazis demolished them, except one Krema, that was heavily modified and made into an air raid shelter. They did not demolish any other camp building. That is evidence of a cover up of criminality.

Nope, that is evidence for a politically-motivated priori conclusions on your part.

No, it is evidence of a criminal cover up. The destruction of evidence is, in itself, usually a criminal offence.

Millions of buildings and other infrastructures were destroyed by both sides as part of a legitimate scorched-earth policy during WWII.

But only a few, specific buildings, were destroyed at A-B. That is not scorched earth.

And it's undeniable that letting the large crematoria of Birkenau fall into Soviet hands after the Soviet venomous weaponization of the Majdanek crematoria would have been a foolish and even irresponsible policy. In fact, given the American use of crematory ovens for anti-German propaganda purposes, the authorities of the 3rd Reich should have done the same in Buchenwald and Dachau.

I disagree, leaving the Kremas intact, taking photos to show no holes in the roof, nothing like a shower head attached to the ceilings and the Leichenkellers in use as bomb shelters, showers or whatever you think they were used for, along with letting the Red Cross inspect the buildings in 1944, would have stopped mass gassing claims dead.

[Nessie]

Alien abduction witnesses, corroborate each other, but there is no other evidence to corroborate them. They are also making claims that are physically impossible to have happened.

Mass gassing witnesses, corroborate each other and there is other evidence to corroborate them. They are also making claims that are physically possible to have happened.

Lol. Alien truthers and gassing truthers have about the same level of corroboration. In both cases the photos, the documents, and the physical locations are utterly ordinary.

I would not call three AR camps, that were razed to the ground and left guarded, because of the huge areas of disturbed ground, containing cremated remains, utterly ordinary. What other camps were left like that?

A video of a blinking light in the sky which we are supposed to believe is an alien vehicle has about as much corroborative value as a blueprint of a delousing gas chamber which we are supposed to believe was "authentic proof" of human gassings. A crop circle in a field has about as much corroborative value as the Soviet Mound of Ashes, which is merely a hill of dirt.

Of course alien truthers refer in some cases to real locations and events. A forest or a park or a residence is a real place that can be accurately described from memory and therefore corroborate that specific memory. But if you were to say that it corroborates alien contact I would have to regard you as insane.

As to gassing witnesses, the vast majority -- if not the entirety -- of these witnesses are plainly refuted by the physical and documentary evidence as well as each other.

Eyewitnesses describe mass arrivals. Documents record mass arrivals. How is that the documentary evidence refuting the witnesses? What eyewitnesses refute each other? What physical evidence refutes them?

As for physical possibility, what they claimed is almost universally impossible. Diesel gassings, instantaneous gassings, instantaneous ventilation, Zyklon through shower heads, 5-minute cremations, etc. You've repeatedly avoided confronting these simple scientific facts, which shows you're just not serious about this debate.

That is a fabrication on your part. I get criticised for being repetitive, as I repeatedly explain the diesel etc claims, by discussing the difference between hearsay and eyewitness evidence and how memory, recall and other factors affect the testimony. You then refuse to engage with any studies about witnesses, as you want to pretend that your argument from incredulity, about physical impossibility, is legitimate.

Instead you try to excuse impossibilities with logical blunders like this one:

You can illogically argue it was not possible, based on what ever calculations you want to make, or believe, all you want. Since it is evidenced and proven to have happened, then logically, it was possible.

I suspect that this fallacious logic would be out of place even among alien truthers, yet it is a standard rationale for Holocaust believers. Your statement neatly echoes this amusing classic quote from Pierre Vidal Naquet and thirty three other defenders of the narrative in 1979:

It is not necessary to ask oneself how, technically, such a mass murder was possible. It was technically possible because it happened.

That position is logically and evidentially correct. If something is proven to have happened, it stands to reason it was possible to happen. Just because you cannot work out, to your satisfaction, how it happened, does not prove it did not happen.

But any objective thinker can see that this makes the evidence dependent on the conclusion instead of the other way around.

No, the conclusion is derived from the evidence. Multiple eyewitnesses say gas chambers killed people at A-B. There is documentary, physical and circumstantial evidence to corroborate the eyewitnesses. Gassings are then proven.

You then come along and announce that since you cannot work out how the gassings could have been possible, that proves they did not happen and all the eyewitnesses lied. That argument is logically flawed. You then fail to evidence and prove what did happen instead.

As well, that by removing the boundaries of physics from what is possible that you will and do excuse confronting any and every refutation. So, if I were to show you that bodies physically cannot be cremated at the rates claimed by the eyewitnesses because there has never been a cremation of an adult corpse in 10 minutes, you would insist that it is possible because it happened.

Wrong. I would point to reasons why that 10 minutes is wrong and the evidence that the corpses were in the ovens for at least 30 mnutes. I would explain the studies that show we are poor at estimating how long something took to happen, as a potential reason why witness made clear mistakes about how long cremations took. I would not and have never insisted that cremations took 10 minutes, you made that falsehood up.

It is because you ignore the studied about estimating time, that you take claims about 10 minute cremations, literally. You think if a witness claims 10 minutes, that is evidence of a lie. Those who have studied witnesses, know that it is better explained by an underestimation of time.

"AI Overview
We're often bad at estimating how long things take due to optimism and incomplete planning...We tend to underestimate task duration, focusing on ideal conditions rather than potential delays."

https://fullfocus.co/the-science-of-gauging-time/

"We aren’t just bad at estimating task duration. We specifically and predictably underestimate how long a task will take to complete."

Now do you see that it is likely the eyewitnesses, when asked, often years later, how long did the cremations take, that they underestimated the length of time, and that explains the 10 minute claim?

[Eye of Zyclone]

Alien abduction witnesses, corroborate each other, but there is no other evidence to corroborate them. They are also making claims that are physically impossible to have happened.

Mass gassing witnesses, corroborate each other and there is other evidence to corroborate them. They are also making claims that are physically possible to have happened.

Wrong. Hence the need for antirevisionist laws (and other means of social pressure) throughout the so-called free world. Truth doesn't fear investigation and debate. But the Holohoax blatantly does.

I am not wrong to say alien abduction only has witness evidence, whereas the Holocaust has evidence from all sorts of sources. There are no anti-revisionist laws. There are some anti-denial laws. What you lot do, is deny, you just insist it is called revisionism.

Yes, you are wrong. Hence the orthodox/antirevisionist allegation that the Nazis destroyed all the tangible proofs of their alleged crimes.

There are no anti-revisionist laws. There are some anti-denial laws. What you lot do, is deny, you just insist it is called revisionism.

Nope. Your lot just called Holocaust revisionism "denial" in order to dodge a debate you would lose and have already lost the few times you engaged in it (e.g. the Zundel trials of 1985 and 1988, the embarrassing antirevisionist defeat on the Donahue show in the 1990s).

Nope, that is evidence for a politically-motivated priori conclusions on your part.

No, it is evidence of a criminal cover up. The destruction of evidence is, in itself, usually a criminal offence.

Millions of buildings and other infrastructures were destroyed by both sides as part of a legitimate scorched-earth policy during WWII.

But only a few, specific buildings, were destroyed at A-B. That is not scorched earth.

Depriving your enemy of facilities he will use against you for propaganda purposes is still a scorched earth policy. Scorched earth is about depriving your enemy of anything he can use against you in any way. Destroying crematories to be used to demonize you is patently part of a scorched earth policy.

And it's undeniable that letting the large crematoria of Birkenau fall into Soviet hands after the Soviet venomous weaponization of the Majdanek crematoria would have been a foolish and even irresponsible policy. In fact, given the American use of crematory ovens for anti-German propaganda purposes, the authorities of the 3rd Reich should have done the same in Buchenwald and Dachau.

I disagree, leaving the Kremas intact, taking photos to show no holes in the roof, nothing like a shower head attached to the ceilings and the Leichenkellers in use as bomb shelters, showers or whatever you think they were used for, along with letting the Red Cross inspect the buildings in 1944, would have stopped mass gassing claims dead.

Would have changed nothing. The first draft of the Soviet narrative about gas chambers in Auschwitz was that the alleged Nazi gas chambers had been "restructured to look like innocent garages," not that they were dynamited rooms of the large crematoria in Birkenau.

And for info, the Red Cross did inspect the camp in 1944 and reported that its delegate "had not been able to discover any trace of installations for exterminating civilian prisoners" there. But it changed nothing either. The victors' atrocity propaganda was unhampered by that finding.



Moreover archaeologists examine ruins every day. Making ruins speak is their job. Finding tangible proofs of a homicidal use of those damaged (but not destroyed) morgues would have been a breeze, but antirevisionist historians failed to find such proofs because that alleged homicidal use is just a big atrocity propaganda lie.

[Nessie]

Wrong. Hence the need for antirevisionist laws (and other means of social pressure) throughout the so-called free world. Truth doesn't fear investigation and debate. But the Holohoax blatantly does.

I am not wrong to say alien abduction only has witness evidence, whereas the Holocaust has evidence from all sorts of sources. There are no anti-revisionist laws. There are some anti-denial laws. What you lot do, is deny, you just insist it is called revisionism.

Yes, you are wrong. Hence the orthodox/antirevisionist allegation that the Nazis destroyed all the tangible proofs of their alleged crimes.

No I am not wrong. Historians do not allege the Nazis destroyed all the evidence of their crimes.

There are no anti-revisionist laws. There are some anti-denial laws. What you lot do, is deny, you just insist it is called revisionism.

Nope. Your lot just called Holocaust revisionism "denial" in order to dodge a debate you would lose and have already lost the few times you engaged in it (e.g. the Zundel trials of 1985 and 1988, the embarrassing antirevisionist defeat on the Donahue show in the 1990s).

Holocaust deniers got their name, from denying much of what happened during the Holocaust. They are not revisionists, as they cannot produce a revised history. You are wrong to think the Zundel trials and what happened on Donahue, were so-called revisionist victories.

Nope, that is evidence for a politically-motivated priori conclusions on your part.

No, it is evidence of a criminal cover up. The destruction of evidence is, in itself, usually a criminal offence.

Millions of buildings and other infrastructures were destroyed by both sides as part of a legitimate scorched-earth policy during WWII.

But only a few, specific buildings, were destroyed at A-B. That is not scorched earth.

Depriving your enemy of facilities he will use against you for propaganda purposes is still a scorched earth policy. Scorched earth is about depriving your enemy of anything he can use against you in any way. Destroying crematories to be used to demonize you is patently part of a scorched earth policy.

What about every other building in the camp? Why did the scorched earth policy miss them out? Show me evidence of this policy.

Getting Kremas inspected in 1944, by the Red Cross and leaving them as the Red Cross had found them, would have stopped any attempt to frame the Nazis, in its tracks.

And it's undeniable that letting the large crematoria of Birkenau fall into Soviet hands after the Soviet venomous weaponization of the Majdanek crematoria would have been a foolish and even irresponsible policy. In fact, given the American use of crematory ovens for anti-German propaganda purposes, the authorities of the 3rd Reich should have done the same in Buchenwald and Dachau.

I disagree, leaving the Kremas intact, taking photos to show no holes in the roof, nothing like a shower head attached to the ceilings and the Leichenkellers in use as bomb shelters, showers or whatever you think they were used for, along with letting the Red Cross inspect the buildings in 1944, would have stopped mass gassing claims dead.

Would have changed nothing. The first draft of the Soviet narrative about gas chambers in Auschwitz was that the alleged Nazi gas chambers had been "restructured to look like innocent garages," not that they were dynamited rooms of the large crematoria in Birkenau.

And for info, the Red Cross did inspect the camp in 1944 and reported that its delegate "had not been able to discover any trace of installations for exterminating civilian prisoners" there. But it changed nothing either. The victors' atrocity propaganda was unhampered by that finding.

They did not get to visit Birkenau and inspect the Kremas and two nearby farm houses, that were used for gassings. Why did the Nazis score such an obvious own goal, by missing out that camp and those buildings?

Moreover archaeologists examine ruins every day. Making ruins speak is their job. Finding tangible proofs of a homicidal use of those damaged (but not destroyed) morgues would have been a breeze, but antirevisionist historians failed to find such proofs because that alleged homicidal use is just a big atrocity propaganda lie.

You are showing how ignorant you are, of what archaeology can deduce, from ruins.

[Eye of Zyclone]

I am not wrong to say alien abduction only has witness evidence, whereas the Holocaust has evidence from all sorts of sources. There are no anti-revisionist laws. There are some anti-denial laws. What you lot do, is deny, you just insist it is called revisionism.

Yes, you are wrong. Hence the orthodox/antirevisionist allegation that the Nazis destroyed all the tangible proofs of their alleged crimes.

No I am not wrong. Historians do not allege the Nazis destroyed all the evidence of their crimes.

Of course they do.

No, it is evidence of a criminal cover up. The destruction of evidence is, in itself, usually a criminal offence.

But only a few, specific buildings, were destroyed at A-B. That is not scorched earth.

Depriving your enemy of facilities he will use against you for propaganda purposes is still a scorched earth policy. Scorched earth is about depriving your enemy of anything he can use against you in any way. Destroying crematories to be used to demonize you is patently part of a scorched earth policy.

What about every other building in the camp? Why did the scorched earth policy miss them out? Show me evidence of this policy.

Nothing was missed. Demonizing an enemy with canteens and dormitories is much harder than demonizing an enemy with big crematories. Hence the quite insignificant newspaper reports when the Red Army captured Auschwitz.

I've already showed you evidence of that policy. I've previously showed you that the Soviets massively used the crematoria of Majdanek to demonize the Germans and that they then used that Majdanek propaganda to fuel the hatred of their troops and make them mass murder German civilians.

Getting Kremas inspected in 1944, by the Red Cross and leaving them as the Red Cross had found them, would have stopped any attempt to frame the Nazis, in its tracks.

Patently false. Leaving the crematories as they were in Dachau and Buchenwald didn't prevent the Allies from using those facilities to demonize the Germans.

I disagree, leaving the Kremas intact, taking photos to show no holes in the roof, nothing like a shower head attached to the ceilings and the Leichenkellers in use as bomb shelters, showers or whatever you think they were used for, along with letting the Red Cross inspect the buildings in 1944, would have stopped mass gassing claims dead.

Would have changed nothing. The first draft of the Soviet narrative about gas chambers in Auschwitz was that the alleged Nazi gas chambers had been "restructured to look like innocent garages," not that they were dynamited rooms of the large crematoria in Birkenau.

And for info, the Red Cross did inspect the camp in 1944 and reported that its delegate "had not been able to discover any trace of installations for exterminating civilian prisoners" there. But it changed nothing either. The victors' atrocity propaganda was unhampered by that finding.

They did not get to visit Birkenau and inspect the Kremas and two nearby farm houses, that were used for gassings. Why did the Nazis score such an obvious own goal, by missing out that camp and those buildings?

They did visit Birkenau (AKA Auschwitz II) too. Auschwitz was the general name of the whole complex. And they also interrogated workers who could ask camp inmates about it.

Moreover archaeologists examine ruins every day. Making ruins speak is their job. Finding tangible proofs of a homicidal use of those damaged (but not destroyed) morgues would have been a breeze, but antirevisionist historians failed to find such proofs because that alleged homicidal use is just a big atrocity propaganda lie.

You are showing how ignorant you are, of what archaeology can deduce, from ruins.

From an expert on nothing like yourself, this is a great compliment.

[Nessie]

Yes, you are wrong. Hence the orthodox/antirevisionist allegation that the Nazis destroyed all the tangible proofs of their alleged crimes.

No I am not wrong. Historians do not allege the Nazis destroyed all the evidence of their crimes.

Of course they do.

That is not a quote to support you. The Nazis still left enough evidence to prove the mass murders, despite their best efforts to destroy evidence. The one thing they could not do, was explain where all the Jews they had arrested, had gone.

Depriving your enemy of facilities he will use against you for propaganda purposes is still a scorched earth policy. Scorched earth is about depriving your enemy of anything he can use against you in any way. Destroying crematories to be used to demonize you is patently part of a scorched earth policy.

What about every other building in the camp? Why did the scorched earth policy miss them out? Show me evidence of this policy.

Nothing was missed. Demonizing an enemy with canteens and dormitories is much harder than demonizing an enemy with big crematories. Hence the quite insignificant newspaper reports when the Red Army captured Auschwitz.

I've already showed you evidence of that policy. I've previously showed you that the Soviets massively used the crematoria of Majdanek to demonize the Germans and that they then used that Majdanek propaganda to fuel the hatred of their troops and make them mass murder German civilians.

Why did they ONLY destroy the crematoriums of Birkenau? What about all the other camps?

Getting Kremas inspected in 1944, by the Red Cross and leaving them as the Red Cross had found them, would have stopped any attempt to frame the Nazis, in its tracks.

Patently false. Leaving the crematories as they were in Dachau and Buchenwald didn't prevent the Allies from using those facilities to demonize the Germans.

So why did they leave them intact?

Would have changed nothing. The first draft of the Soviet narrative about gas chambers in Auschwitz was that the alleged Nazi gas chambers had been "restructured to look like innocent garages," not that they were dynamited rooms of the large crematoria in Birkenau.

And for info, the Red Cross did inspect the camp in 1944 and reported that its delegate "had not been able to discover any trace of installations for exterminating civilian prisoners" there. But it changed nothing either. The victors' atrocity propaganda was unhampered by that finding.

They did not get to visit Birkenau and inspect the Kremas and two nearby farm houses, that were used for gassings. Why did the Nazis score such an obvious own goal, by missing out that camp and those buildings?

They did visit Birkenau (AKA Auschwitz II) too. Auschwitz was the general name of the whole complex. And they also interrogated workers who could ask camp inmates about it.

You are showing how ignorant you are, of what archaeology can deduce, from ruins.

From an expert on nothing like yourself, this is a great compliment.

The Red Cross did not get to visit Birkenau and see inside the Kremas in 1943-4. Auschwitz was the general name for a complex of about 40 camps. The Red Cross visit was limited and did not include Birkenau. That the Nazis ONLY destroyed the Kremas of Birkenau and NO other camp, is indicative of their criminal use.

[Eye of Zyclone]

You just keep repeating the same debunked nonsenses & fallacious pseudo arguments ad nauseam like a brain-dead parrot or a super primitive chatbot. Immensely boring. Leads nowhere.

[Nessie]

You just keep repeating the same debunked nonsenses & fallacious pseudo arguments ad nauseam like a brain-dead parrot or a super primitive chatbot. Immensely boring. Leads nowhere.

In 1944 Maurice Rossel, from the ICRC visited Auschwitz, but he did not get to visit Birkenau. It is the so-called revisionists who have been debunked on the claim that the ICRC got to visit and check all the camps and they found nothing.

[Eye of Zyclone]

You just keep repeating the same debunked nonsenses & fallacious pseudo arguments ad nauseam like a brain-dead parrot or a super primitive chatbot. Immensely boring. Leads nowhere.

In 1944 Maurice Rossel, from the ICRC visited Auschwitz, but he did not get to visit Birkenau. It is the so-called revisionists who have been debunked on the claim that the ICRC got to visit and check all the camps and they found nothing.

Feel free not to "omit" the part in which Dr. Rossel could indirectly interrogate some Auschwitz inmates and couldn't confirm the gas-chamber story despite this.

[Nessie]

You just keep repeating the same debunked nonsenses & fallacious pseudo arguments ad nauseam like a brain-dead parrot or a super primitive chatbot. Immensely boring. Leads nowhere.

In 1944 Maurice Rossel, from the ICRC visited Auschwitz, but he did not get to visit Birkenau. It is the so-called revisionists who have been debunked on the claim that the ICRC got to visit and check all the camps and they found nothing.

Feel free not to "omit" the part in which Dr. Rossel could indirectly interrogate some Auschwitz inmates and couldn't confirm the gas-chamber story despite this.

A-B had c130,000 inmates in 1944. Feel free to show that the Nazis got inmates who worked inside the Kremas, for Rossel to interview.

[Eye of Zyclone]

A-B had c130,000 inmates in 1944. Feel free to show that the Nazis got inmates who worked inside the Kremas, for Rossel to interview.

According to superstar witness Rudolf Vrba, one didn't need to be inside the Kremas to know.



Ditto for David Olère's pictorial testimony.



And according to the German Government's Holohoax indoctrination manual for kids and teens, seeing smoke and flames coming out of chimneys (which is a physical impossibilty (regarding flames)), plus piles of clothes and suitcases was enough to know.

[Nessie]

A-B had c130,000 inmates in 1944. Feel free to show that the Nazis got inmates who worked inside the Kremas, for Rossel to interview.

According to superstar witness Rudolf Vrba, one didn't need to be inside the Kremas to know.

...

Rossel did not get to see inside a Krema, or interview someone who worked there. Instead, he got hand picked witnesses who would of course say they saw nothing.

[Eye of Zyclone]

A-B had c130,000 inmates in 1944. Feel free to show that the Nazis got inmates who worked inside the Kremas, for Rossel to interview.

According to superstar witness Rudolf Vrba, one didn't need to be inside the Kremas to know.

...

Rossel did not get to see inside a Krema, or interview someone who worked there. Instead, he got hand picked witnesses who would of course say they saw nothing.

Damn!! Those elusive gas chambers seemed harder to catch than an extraterrestrial alien at Area 51!