Conclusions and thoughts
The photo reproduction from the 2004 report is actually fairly impressive. The viewpoint is quite similar, as are the frame's slope and angle. I believe it may be zoomed in a bit much, and it's obviously not exact, however this is nitpicking.
I do still question, how one can accurately pinpoint each of the marks, and identify them as 'square holes.' One is clear to be (Z1), however the others are very vague and can be interpreted as even asymmetrical. The visible mark to the left (Z4), seems too far in. (see photos below.) I've measured this to be about 800-1000mm from the roof's edge (based on the position of Z4 on the ceiling.) The mark in the Soviet photo appears to be greater > than 1000mm from the edge. The 2004 report claims that hole Z5 is 'off camera.' Why? It is in line with Z4 and should be visible from this viewpoint, based on the location of Z4.
As for my other thoughts on this report -
- the felt roof that we see today is not original and was laid by the Poles/ Soviets after the war. The reason for this was for waterproofing, however the building still leaks inside, and did so in earlier photos from the 1980's.
- The premise for 2004 report relies solely on the authenticity of the mark depressions. However, in the original 1945 Soviet photo, we can already see work has been done and temporary structures are in place. The timber pole barriers along the perimeter (for the Soviet rooftop party), the party table, benches, a stack of large tiles, and the new roof felt covering.
One has to ask, given all these early modifications, how do we know the Soviets didn't just make these marks?
- If we look at the stack of thick tiles on the bottom left, near the timber bench, it oddly seems like similar fit for hole Z1?
We know these openings were about 700x700, which is a similar size to a common large tile (600x600). Were the Soviets using the square tiles on the roof to set-out the holes? Was the felt cut in these positions?
- If the marks depressions were, indeed, the original holes, why didn't the Soviets reopen hole Z1?
- I've cited Mattogno's corresponding measurements earlier, of 5100 and 7100 from two walls on the ground floor, one of which didn't exist until 1944 (the airlock wall) and the other which had a wall in front of it (the washroom.) These figures aren't coincidental, it's likely the hole openings were set-out in an arrangement, measured from these two walls.
I'm not sure how the Germans did this in 1942 when one wall didn't' exist, and the other had a wall in front of it.
Considering how they perfectly align with the 1944 air-raid layout (with the five internal walls) it's likely the Soviets set this out on the bottom, so when they were punching the holes in on the top, they would bypass the internal walls & beams below.
- Apart from the four square openings, Mattogno counted four circular (likely ventilation) hole openings. He includes Z1 as one of the circular ventilation holes. All of these circular holes have been patched up. It is odd that circular holes 3 and 2 are so close to each other. I am of the belief that no.2 (which is Z1) was a failed Soviet attempt at a square vent opening, or perhaps they chose to stick to the current slanted-H layout. This is speculation. However, the close proximity doesn't make sense. It is likely true that the Germans would've had small ventilation holes, and circular holes are seen in the remains of Krema II. This is likely what ignited the stories.

- roof photo original_.png (278.43 KiB) Viewed 2842 times

- Roof original 2.png (379.23 KiB) Viewed 2770 times
Mattogno's hole layout plan
Key:
Opened holes: A = Z3, B = Z2, C = Z5, D = Z4
Sealed: 2 = Z1
Note: We know that 2 (Z1) and D (Z4) line up, so he made a slight mistake here.

- Screenshot 2025-02-27 002846.png (213.13 KiB) Viewed 2770 times