Wood Requirements for Outdoor Cremations

[Nessie]

The earliest reports of cremations inside the AR camps came late 1942, from Polish people who lived and worked near to the camps, reporting to the Government in Exiles intelligence. Why would people near to Belzec, Sobibor and TII all start to make that up?

Those early reports were then corroborated by escaped prisoners, who all stated the cremations were not just of the newly dead, but also corpses exhumed from mass graves. That action, of exhumation and cremation, was being repeated all over the east, in the operation to hide how many people the Nazis were killing.

Why don't you quote the most impressive of these testimonies for us?

Excerpts of Nazi descriptions here;

http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org ... speak.html

Of course, you will not find them impressive, which according to you is proof they all lied, 100% of them.

Suppose we have an account of some burning at a camp. How would you distinguish between burning of say 900 vs 9,000 vs 90,000 vs 900,000 bodies? It seems to me like your method of checking for whether there are testimonies about "burning" (binary yes/no check) wouldn't establish the order of magnitude. Which is sort of the whole point.

The evidence that proves the numbers are in the hundreds of thousands comes from the witness estimations, the documents recording mass arrivals and the archaeological finds of large areas of disturbed ground containing cremated remains. Three separate sources of evidence that corroborate.

Do you accept Muehlenkamp's claim that only 15 kg of wood were needed per body?

I have no idea if that is correct or not. The guessing and estimations are merely that and experiments are way off the reality of cremating thousands of all ready decaying corpses at a time. My point is that the truth is more reliably established from the evidence, not argument over wood reqirements for outdoor cremations. Only revisionists disagree with that.

[Nessie]

Even that ridiculous low ball number would still present major difficulties, i.e., it still implies big undocumented wood deliveries.

Are you sure that undocumented wood deliveries are a problem? All kinds of documentation didn't get preserved and it would make sense for Nazis to destroy any documentation of wood deliveries. Other revisionists elsewhere have posited document destruction for other things.

If we take your argument, though, then this invalidates the entire exterminationist position, which relies on the notion (as Nessie has emphasized repeatedly), that we cannot infer what 'makes sense' but, rather, only what is evidenced to have happened.

If it would make sense for 'Nazis' to destroy documentation of wood deliveries, then it also makes sense for them to destroy documentation of Jewish transit records and destinations in the East.

There is no escaping this.

The Nazis knew about the Polish reports that they had death camps such as TII. It made sense to destroy evidence of activity at those camps, such as mass cremations. It did not make sense to destroy evidence that they were not death camps, such as mass transports back out of the camps. There is no escaping that.

[Nazgul]

The Nazis knew about the Polish reports that they had death camps such as TII. It made sense to destroy evidence of activity at those camps, such as mass cremations. It did not make sense to destroy evidence that they were not death camps, such as mass transports back out of the camps. There is no escaping that.

The Polish reports were from spies, propaganda. The spies have been shown to you previously yet they are dismissed. There were no mass tranports out of camps as there were no mass transports into them.

[Nessie]

Since revisionists cannot produce any witness or archaeological evidence to prove that there were no mass cremations or large areas of disturbed ground, they need another way to claim that did not happen.

Nessie

No we don't have to, you've gone down that crazy route again of saying that it is for us to prove a negative and you don't have to do anything.

Revisionists are trying to prove a negative, and that mass outdoor cremations did not take place. But you now say that is crazy!

You've done an 'Eric' again... Believe me when I tell you that if 800,000 corpses had been burned to a pile of dust we would know all about it and the evidence would be everywhere.

It is. In 1945 at TII, the Poles found 2 hectares up to 7m deep that was a mix of disturbed ground and cremated remains. That is 140,000m3, or the equivalent of 56 Olympic sized swimming pools. Even after the site was concreted over to protect it from grave robbers, cremated remains can be found on the surface, as shown in the 2011 survey. That was also the case at Sobibor and Belzec, which is why their memorials were expanded to cover the site. Sobibor had so many cremated remains, that a dome was constructed to keep them. You deny that and pretend it is not the case.

The logic of you guys is staggeringly bizarre. I'll cut you some slack at the moment though, just a little, because The Donald was re-elected to the White House last week and you've probably been distracted by having no sex, cutting your hair, booking tickets to Mexico or Canada and generally bed wetting all over the shop.

What logic is that?

[Nazgul]

Revisionists are trying to prove a negative, and that mass outdoor cremations did not take place. But you now say that is crazy!

They did happen but from the natural dead from disease and those who died on trains.

[Nessie]

The Nazis knew about the Polish reports that they had death camps such as TII. It made sense to destroy evidence of activity at those camps, such as mass cremations. It did not make sense to destroy evidence that they were not death camps, such as mass transports back out of the camps. There is no escaping that.

The Polish reports were from spies, propaganda. The spies have been shown to you previously yet they are dismissed. There were no mass tranports out of camps as there were no mass transports into them.

In this post from the last page of the thread, you presented evidence of mass arrivals and you argued cremations at TII were from the dead on those arrivals;

viewtopic.php?p=1099#p1099

You are all over the place and are contradicting Mattogno, Scott, Eric Hunt and others who say that there were mass arrivals.

[Nessie]

Revisionists are trying to prove a negative, and that mass outdoor cremations did not take place. But you now say that is crazy!

They did happen but from the natural dead from disease and those who died on trains.

At 9.39am you posted "There were no mass tranports out of camps as there were no mass transports into them" and at 9.47am you contradict yourself.

[Nazgul]

At 9.39am you posted "There were no mass tranports out of camps as there were no mass transports into them" and at 9.47am you contradict yourself.

This is because the majority left the transports at the labour camps as previously mentioned.
Remember Fplo state that the transports only stopped at labour camps for Jews or junctions to other labour camps. No other towns or cities. Saying dead arrived by train does not mean mass transports.

[borjastick]

jewsinvented.jpeg (24.06 KiB) Viewed 169 times

Nessie's comments proving once again why he should never be let out after dark or allowed to be in charge of heavy machinery.

[Nessie]

At 9.39am you posted "There were no mass tranports out of camps as there were no mass transports into them" and at 9.47am you contradict yourself.

This is because the majority left the transports at the labour camps as previously mentioned.
Remember Fplo state that the transports only stopped at labour camps for Jews or junctions to other labour camps. No other towns or cities. Saying dead arrived by train does not mean mass transports.

The evidence you quoted;

"'On 18 August 1942, Waffen SS officer Kurt Gerstein had witnessed at Belzec the arrival of "45 wagons with 6,700 people, of whom 1,450 were already dead on arrival"

That is 149 people per wagon, so a full train that let no one off en route. Just like that other evidence you posted about a transport to Belzec, where the Nazi testimony was clear that no one was let off at the stops, which were used to repair damage as Jews tried to escape. You produce evidence of full transports arriving at the AR camps as you try to argue they were mostly empty!

Name a town or city in Poland that did not have a camp or ghetto for its Jewish population, when the Nazis started to round the Jews up. That the stops on the Fplos had temporary camps or ghettos, is nothing unusual. What you cannot counter is that they closed before TII did. You are off topic on your obsession about transports.

[Nazgul]

Name a town or city in Poland that did not have a camp or ghetto for its Jewish population, when the Nazis started to round the Jews up. That the stops on the Fplos had temporary camps or ghettos, is nothing unusual. What you cannot counter is that they closed before TII did. You are off topic on your obsession about transports.

I am referring to specific Fplo documents that showed the trains stopped for extended periods at the sites of labour camps for Jews or junctions to other labour camps. They did not stop at ghettos or other places, just the ones mentioned. If labour camps closed this is because the war was coming too close and relocated further west, or the work was done. Alex Cohen left Sobibor and ended up at Skyz Kam munitions factory, the train he was on would have had an Fplo, that is how railways work. While trainloads full of people may have ended up at various locations, this is not the Fplo document mentioned by Hilberg or yourself. Find one.

You mention Belzec, find an Fplo for those transports. Now sticking to the topic.

On 18 August 1942, Waffen SS officer Kurt Gerstein had witnessed at Belzec the arrival of "45 wagons with 6,700 people, of whom 1,450 were already dead on arrival

1,450 is a large amount of dead bodies, no doubt classed as holocaust victims. They would probably have been cremated on an open pyre, buried. Partly burned perhaps. How much wood would that require? Tell us all. (300 tonne) Would be much easier to bury them. Perhaps they did which would account for the saponification found in the area.

[Nessie]

The only way to determine how much wood is needed for mass pyres of thousands of partially decomposed corpses, is to conduct experiments with a lot of partially decomposed corpses. Everything else, is guess work.

[borjastick]

The only way to determine how much wood is needed for mass pyres of thousands of partially decomposed corpses, is to conduct experiments with a lot of partially decomposed corpses. Everything else, is guess work.

Says Nessie running for the hills because he knows his argument is total shite.

All this from the man who wants to be unburdened by what has been.

A man who thinks if you cannot prove something didn't happen then it must, by default, have happened. Sheesh!

[Nazgul]

The only way to determine how much wood is needed for mass pyres of thousands of partially decomposed corpses, is to conduct experiments with a lot of partially decomposed corpses. Everything else, is guess work.

There has been enough burning of all kinds of animal corpses for even the average farmer to know how it works. Science does not work with guestimates, only a fool thinks that. Crematoria are precise to get the maximimum effect for minimum fuel. It is all about $. The maximum effect for the smallest amount spent. Was certainly like that in Germany 42.

[Nessie]

The only way to determine how much wood is needed for mass pyres of thousands of partially decomposed corpses, is to conduct experiments with a lot of partially decomposed corpses. Everything else, is guess work.

Says Nessie running for the hills because he knows his argument is total shite.

You admit that all you have is argument. I prefer evidence. Got any evidence from witnesses who worked inside the AR camps, there were no mass pyres? Have you got any evidence from site surveys and excavations that have found no, or only limited traces of ash and cremated remains? The answer is no, so you produce total shite arguments as to why pyres cannot have happened!

All this from the man who wants to be unburdened by what has been.

A man who thinks if you cannot prove something didn't happen then it must, by default, have happened. Sheesh!

Misrepresenting my arguments is another of your tactics. It is called the strawman logical fallacy.

Logically, if an event cannot be proven to have happened, then it is likely it did not happen, but it could also be the case that it happened, but it did not leave enough evidence to prove the event happened.

An event, such as the relocation and resettlement of millions of Jews in the eastern occupied territory, would leave a lot of evidence. It would require a lot of organisation, generating a large bureaucracy and documentation. There would be the physical evidence of the camps needed to accommodate so many people. Then there are the millions of witnesses, from the prisoners to locals to the SS who guarded them.

Revisionists cannot produce any evidence of that event taking place. Such an event would leave a lot of evidence if it did happen. Therefore, logically, it is proven it did not happen.

The same applies to the wood argument. A lot of cremations would leave a lot of ash and cremains. Excavations at the AR camps sites have established the presence of large areas of ash and cremated remains. Therefore, revisionists doubts are proven to be wrong. The debate about how much wood was needed and where it came from, based on very limited evidence, is merely an incidental exercise that has insignificant evidential value.