A Proposal

[Stubble]

We will stick to Blobel then, since you are playing dumb about Warnick, the author of a year in treblinka, saying that jewesses burn better.

You expect me to believe that the guy responsible for Aktion 1005 couldn't remember how he performed Aktion 1005, so, I should disregard him here? Because he isn't a reliable witness? But, that the holocaust totally happened as described though.

What a perplexing conundrum.

The guy that did the thing can't describe how to do the thing, but, he totally did the thing.

[Wahrheitssucher]

To Wahrheitssucher, I wouldn't expect your Polish friend to have very much good intel…

I seriously and genuinely suggest to you that you have a considerable comprehension deficit.
I’m being serious. That isn’t intended as an insult.
In other words, you appear to me not to be able to process data concisely and coherently.

E.g. a teacher from my distant childhood (who in 2018 I hadn't seen for 56 years) you should have been able to understand was nearly 100 years old when I interviewed him, and therefore is not someone who you could reasonably assume from the info given was “my friend”.
Someone who could make such a miscalculation /false assumption from the info I provided, is not likely to be someone who who can decipher and accurately interpret more complex data.

Well apologies good sir, I didn't give it much thought and just assumed you had kept in touch. Don't know what the relevance is though (slow blink emojI)

That you don’t understand the point further proves the point!

[TlsMS93]

There are exterminationists here who follow van Pelt's line of destroying the structures of concentration camps like Auschwitz so that only the collective memory of witnesses has validity above forensic experimental tests.

[Stubble]

A bit of a summary,

Blobel's testimony is ridiculous (I'm not surprised by that). The holocaust happened as alleged.

One normal retort when the witness testimony is nuts, ridiculous, stupid or a combination, I'm told, 'just because you can't work out how it happened doesn't mean it didn't happen'.

Ok, so, I propose an informal experiment to suss out validity of the testimony.

The new retort, as Mr Hill kindly pointed out was to just get more witness testimony instead.

What I'm left with is that this testimony is indeed fraudulent, but, apparently, it should also be trusted.

Make of that what you will.

[bombsaway]

A bit of a summary,

Blobel's testimony is ridiculous (I'm not surprised by that). The holocaust happened as alleged.

One normal retort when the witness testimony is nuts, ridiculous, stupid or a combination, I'm told, 'just because you can't work out how it happened doesn't mean it didn't happen'.

Ok, so, I propose an informal experiment to suss out validity of the testimony.

The new retort, as Mr Hill kindly pointed out was to just get more witness testimony instead.

What I'm left with is that this testimony is indeed fraudulent, but, apparently, it should also be trusted.

Make of that what you will.

You, like the sith, are dealing in absolutes. Something can be fantastical without being fraudulent (this is a conscious act of deceit). So too some parts of witness testimony can be inaccurate in terms of specific detail (like pit dimensions) due to imperfect recall mostly, while broadly being accurate - Blobel spending a year at Lodz doing corpse destruction experiments. Witnesses can also misspeak. You guys are batty.

[Stubble]

He didn't misspeak Bombsaway.

[bombsaway]

He didn't misspeak Bombsaway.

So he said 20 meters and 2 meters deep right? Even if both were utter lies, he misspoke once.

[Stubble]

Transposition error by typist, not testimony.

Check your records.

[bombsaway]

What was the transposition error?

I suppose I should contrast the different ways that grave is described. Here are three quotes, two from the interrogation of June 6 and one from the affidavit signed June 18.

24. Q.: How many men were in the one grave in Kiev that you saw?
A.: It was 55 m x 3 m x 2 1/2 m long.
[...]
28. Q.: How deep was this ditch?
A.: About 20 m.

45. Q.: How many people do you estimate were in the grave in Kiev?
A.: 55 m long, 20 m deep, it was sandy soil, a layer was about 2 m on top, I estimate 200 to 300 people.

This grave was about 55 m. long, 3 m. wide and 2½ m. deep.

Obviously it can't be both 20 meters deep and 2.5 meters deep. Make of that what you will.

[Stubble]

In the affidavit of course. He signed it, he didn't write it, and there is a transposition error in it.

Regardless this is strange pilpul.

You are saying the rest is gold?

[bombsaway]

In the affidavit of course. He signed it, he didn't write it, and there is a transposition error in it.

Regardless this is strange pilpul.

You are saying the rest is gold?

The error was made twice , in two different interrogations it seems

[Wetzelrad]

By my reading, the interrogator should have already known the depth from answer 24, if that was indeed a depth measurement. Instead we see the interrogator asked for the depth at question 28, plus then Blobel volunteered it again at answer 45. I can't see how two instances of "20 m deep" could both be stenography errors.

Here are the relevant portions if you want to try to translate it differently. It strikes me that answer 24 has an extra space and no period on the end. That could be taken to suggest the answer was incomplete or misunderstood.

50+52.jpg (162.33 KiB) Viewed 37 times

I think the suggested experiment is quite unnecessary being as we already have a perfectly good one. In 2018 an experimental study was made into the feasibility of mass cremation with a grill-style design. They used pigs as surrogates for humans. They tested "fuel quantity, methodology of fuel application, body size and body arrangement". The results were utterly at odds with the Holocaust narrative.
https://codoh.com/library/document/open ... revisited/
https://codoh.com/library/document/expe ... cremation/

You might say that Blobel's description is too different since he did not describe a grill, but this can be ignored since the establishment historians cite other witnesses to claim that he or they used grills.

[Stubble]

We agree that the error was in the affidavit me thinks.

The purpose of this proposal of an experiment was to see if bodies buried in a pit for a few months would self immolate over a course of 2 days with a few gallons of diesel.

Regarding the depth of the pit and the discrepancy,
the only way I can read the testimony differently is if I consider that he was saying 2-300 per layer (only possible with German methods) and not 2-300 only. I have to use supposition for that though.

For the experiment, I would suggest the pigs be buried 2m deep as he indicated the 'grave cap' was down to 2m. He also says the hole is 20m deep, hence I say there is an implication it is 2-300 per layer, although to me that isn't perfectly articulated in the testimony. Being a non German speaker may be a limitation for me here however.

So, take 2-300 pigs, bury them for a few months, toss some diesel on them, see if they burn to ash in a couple days. If this was a 'sardine tin' we know there was a layer of sand between the rows, so, he was only dealing with the top layer of bodies anyway, so, bothering the expense of a full excavation and a full packing of carcasses seems unnecessary. Might need to hit the carcasses with some lime though as that was SOP.

Basically, I want to see if carcasses that have been briefly buried self immolate if you prime them with a splash of fuel, as described. I'm pretty sure they don't.

Just my $0.02 on it.

[bombsaway]

Where does Blobel specify how much fuel was used - you say a "few gallons of diesel"

[Wetzelrad]

I will say for my own part that on first reading I interpreted Blobel's "20 meters deep" to be a horizontal measurement, and I still think that is correct. It is common enough in English to use the word "deep" synonymously with "long" and "wide". For example a door could be called 2 inches deep. I assume the same is true in German.

Yes, decomposition was one factor not tested in the 2018 study. I believe Mattogno takes the position that decomposition would increase the fuel cost. On the other side, Roberto Muelenkamp took the position that it would decrease the fuel cost. He famously argued that since cowshit lets off methane a decomposing human corpse can cremate itself. To me only one of these makes sense, but perhaps an experiment would bring clarity. The sensible way to do that would be to run the same experiment twice, once immediately after the subjects were euthanized and again some number of months after they were buried.

A short and easy experiment would be to test just the fuel by itself. If you pour a can of gasoline into, say, an abandoned swimming pool and light it on fire, I would expect it to burn out within a few minutes. You simply can't cremate bodies with this method. Liquid fuel produces one brief burst of intense heat, but the job of cremation requires continuous heat over one hour at minimum. This is why cremation pyres typically use wood with liquid fuel only serving as starter fluid.