THE RUDOLF REPORT

GERMAR RUDOLF · THE RUDOLF REPORT“While there is no certainty in this particular matter, it would havebeen logical to attach at the location where the columns had been someframework at the bottom of the gas chamber ceiling, and pour some concretein the holes, and thus restore the slab.”Van Pelt’s claim that the camp administration could have filled theholes in the ceiling with concrete in the fall of 1944 in order to restorethe ceiling, is without proof. But at least Prof. van Pelt believes that theSS administration acted logically, in that they allegedly attempted towipe away all trace of their alleged crime. But does van Pelt really believethat it would have made more sense to fill up the holes with concreteinstead of removing the entire roof of the ‘gas chamber’, as wasdone with the roofs of morgues 2, the “undressing room”? An Alliedair photo taken on December 21, 1944, shows that the roof of the othermorgue, which is not alleged to have been used to commit any murders,was completely removed. 265 Obviously the whole matter makesno sense. To believe van Pelt, we must believe, that the SS arbitrarilycreated architectural relics to confuse later tourists and Holocaust researchersinstead of destroying the roof entirely, as in the case of theundressing room. This seems too absurd to be taken seriously.But if van Pelt had the most rudimentary knowledge of architecture,he would know that it is impossible to remove holes measuring 70× 70 cm (that is almost half a square meter!) from a concrete roofwithout leaving clearly visible traces. Actually, however, there are notraces of openings in the roof later closed with concrete.In addition, concrete patches filled in later would have flown outof these holes like corks out of a shaken champagne bottle during anexplosion, thus making the holes just as visible as they were before.On closer inspection, Prof. van Pelts allegation turns out to be not onlydemonstrably wrong, but utterly absurd.But at least Prof. van Pelt agrees with the revisionists that there areno remains of these alleged holes. In remarking that there are no suchtraces, van Pelt has in fact proven that there were never any holes inthe ceiling of this room, and, consequently, no Zyklon B introductionholes of any nature whatever, and, consequently, no introduction ofany poisonous substances whatever in the manner described by the‘eyewitnesses’. He has proven that his ‘eyewitnesses’ were lying. He265 Dino A. Brugioni, Robert G. Poirier, op. cit. (note 248), p. 15; see also G. Rudolf, op. cit.(note 68), p. 39. I am grateful to Fritz P. Berg for this argument.128