Wood Requirements for Outdoor Cremations

[Callafangers]

What you trying to do is essentially flip-flopping from the problem for exterminationism in terms of missing evidence for extermination or in this case dead Jews. The real question is Where are the Corpses, if they were gassed. Instead you are peddling Jews not reporting after WW2 to be somehow a proof of extermination. Which it isn't even indirectly.

The whole affair demonstrates that one needs to comply with quite some twisted logic to believe in the Holocaust Narrative. That's a service we van even be grateful for.

Exterminationists have in recent years pretty much given up entirely on the physical evidence debate. I have not seen/heard any significant activity at all from the likes of Muehlenkamp and Hans in this regard (the only ones I recall in the last decade ever focusing on physical evidence, specifically). As far as I am aware, they are still welcome to this current forum.

In addition to the "corpses problem" ("Where did they go?"), the "cremation fuel problem" ("Where did it come from?") has recently crept up with a similar amount of force (I think The Holocaust Encyclopedia has helped simplify some of this otherwise-complex information, making it more digestible and easy to discuss). Both of these matters are pretty-much firmly resolved in favor of the revisionist interpretation.

[Nessie]

I like how Mr. "Direct Evidence!" just makes blatant unprincipled exceptions whenever it suits him.

Are there any testimonies saying that entire trains full of wood were making deliveries to Belzec and Treblinka every day? Any testimonies talking about how they spent all day unloading all that wood? You would need machinery to move it. Any air photos? Documents? Anything?

The only evidence I have found is what I have shown before, the description by SS officer Lambert of going to a Polish sawmill and ordering wood to be delivered to Sobibor for construction. That, plus it stands to reason that deliveries could take place on the trains, such as Globocnik's order for Dutch excavators for Belzec, that it was possible to get wood deliveries to the camps.

If the wood was cut locally around the camp (which is the traditional story) then it would be green. Period. Green wood is much heavier due to higher moisture. It doesn't burn as hot and smokes more. For it to be seasoned, you would need to gather it months in advance and store it somewhere (never happened) or you'd have to dry it in a kiln which would be absurd and expensive for these quantities.

On what basis have you determined that there was no suitable wood available in Poland? The Poles themselves used a lot of wood for fuel, so they would have wood prepared for that purpose.

I do not think your suggestion about gasoline helps you very much. With an open fire, you can use liquid fuel to help get it started but it doesn't provide a good sustained burn. Try it next time you go camping (as if, ha). It burns off very quickly. I'm sure you could design a high tech solution that could use liquid fuel efficiently but with an open fire I don't think it would work well based on my experience with outdoor cooking.

The petrol was used to start pyres and get them going. Claims about the use of petrol for the pyres are to be expected.

Bombaway, you should try to order a thousand cords of wood for delivery. See what they say.

The SS telling Poles to provide them with wood, would be a matter of priority. The Nazis had total control of Poland, which, unlike other occupied countries, ceased to exist as a country.

Revisionists doubts about the Poles having suitable wood and the Nazis being able to get hold of that wood and get it delivered to the camps, are dubious to say the least. The lack of evidence for wood deliveries is not evidence of no deliveries. Revisionist doubts about witness descriptions for the pyres, do not mean those pyres were physically impossible.

[TlsMS93]

When you come across sonderkommando claiming a miracle for their survival when they claim regular extermination of them and everyone accepts that or people surviving the gas chamber and behaving like invisible people and everyone accepts that, then claiming that fresh wood burns, wood the size of a cigarette box per body and fat dripping from collection pits, well, it is we who have to prove the contrary.

[Nazgul]

When you come across sonderkommando claiming a miracle for their survival when they claim regular extermination of them and everyone accepts that or people surviving the gas chamber and behaving like invisible people and everyone accepts that, then claiming that fresh wood burns, wood the size of a cigarette box per body and fat dripping from collection pits, well, it is we who have to prove the contrary.

The kapo Vrba was a spy for the Czech Home Army; his real name is Walter Rosenberg using the false identity given to him, Rudolf Vrba. His goal was to creat atrocity propaganda at Birkenau. After his mission he was smuggled out of Birkenau to write the nonsense the world believes, sorta.

Wiernik says he was at Treblinka but it seems he was at the Malkinia Correctional Facility, perhaps.
the Transit Camp. He created the wood nonsense in his work of fiction, "a year in Treblinka". His first map he swears is true, changes as the nature of the Treblinka story changes.

Lieutenant Franciszek Ząbecki, aka the station master of Treblinka, mentions all the cremations but only manages to take a photo of the burning camp after the insurrection. He also was a spy, using the code name Dawny, his masters being the Armia Krajowa, to keep an eye on rail transports and of course provide disinformation.

Those two witnesses, are used by Nessie and othes with monotonous regularity. Both were agent provocateurs. The irony is that the world thinks false news is a new phenomena.

[Hektor]

....
Exterminationists have in recent years pretty much given up entirely on the physical evidence debate. I have not seen/heard any significant activity at all from the likes of Muehlenkamp and Hans in this regard (the only ones I recall in the last decade ever focusing on physical evidence, specifically). As far as I am aware, they are still welcome to this current forum.

In addition to the "corpses problem" ("Where did they go?"), the "cremation fuel problem" ("Where did it come from?") has recently crept up with a similar amount of force (I think The Holocaust Encyclopedia has helped simplify some of this otherwise-complex information, making it more digestible and easy to discuss). Both of these matters are pretty-much firmly resolved in favor of the revisionist interpretation.

They also dropped asserting homicidal gassing. The 'extermination program' has become more of abstract, just that the emotions are conveyed there. The belief that there was some 'extermination program' to 'kill all Jews' is still conveyed though and this is what the industry is actually living from. Meanwhile this is debunked pretty easily, simply by looking at biographic and testimonies of the so-called 'survivors'.

They never bothered to give hard evidence. Whatever persuaded the other side was chosen. And presenting hard evidence, exposes one to scrutiny, so rather leave this. So rather craft an argument in the form of an innocent question: "Where did they go, if they weren't gassed?" is perhaps the most wide-spread trope among this. They assume that there was a drastic global decline in Jewish population figures. For which there is no real evidence neither. What has been done is insisting that those Jews that didn't explicitly report back as Jews did 'vanish' suggesting that they were 'exterminated'... Now I guess we all know why they have to resort to such substitutes of evidences.


Exterminationist debaters of course ride on what can be seen as the 'cultural hegemony' of the Holocaust Narrative. It's the 'dominant thesis' that can count on official approval. You can profess it publicly and don't have to worry that someone treats you in an obnoxious way, because you said so. Or that you may loose your job or face negative sanction in any way. You can even say obviously stupid things in this regard and people will still make as if they take you serious.


On the other hand except for the negative sanctions, people may ask you why you challenge the narrative or even 'why that is still important'.... Well, it may be a none issue, if it wasn't kept relevant. And the narrative is connected to demands from other people. Either the Germans - who are overtly compliant with almost all demands. Or various other nations, who may still be more defiant. But it involves a transfer of resources and accumulation of social influence, because for a small number of groups the Holocaust is a form of cultural capital.

[curioussoul]

Exterminationists have in recent years pretty much given up entirely on the physical evidence debate. I have not seen/heard any significant activity at all from the likes of Muehlenkamp and Hans in this regard (the only ones I recall in the last decade ever focusing on physical evidence, specifically). As far as I am aware, they are still welcome to this current forum.

There's also the fact that dealing in concretes is viewed as "legitimizing denial", hence why almost no primary research happens within the field of Holocaust historiography. Anything short of taking the reality of the Holocaust for absolute granted is risky business within the field. Hence why most attempted refutations of Holocaust revisionism doesn't come from serious scholars and historians but from bloggers and obsessives on the internet. As I explained to SanityCheck in another thread, most "research" within Holocaust academia consists of sociological analyses of European antisemitism, meta studies on the impact of the Holocaust on European politics, psychological evaluations of antisemites, etc. The last serious attempt to grapple with specific pieces of evidence was probably Van Pelt's book released after the Lipstadt trial. That book was in turn thoroughly dismantled by Mattogno in his probably most impactful book (The Real Case for Auschwitz).

[bombsaway]

Reminder that the Holocaust Controversies gurus think you can cremate a body with only 15 kilograms of wood.

Lest I be accused of straw-manning, here is the table, straight from their own "white paper."


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

It occurs to me that all of these figures are for fresh corpses, what of corpses decomposing for 6 months or more?

That could mean massive reduction (80%?) in the fuel amount needed to reduce to bones.

[Archie]

Reminder that the Holocaust Controversies gurus think you can cremate a body with only 15 kilograms of wood.

Lest I be accused of straw-manning, here is the table, straight from their own "white paper."


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

It occurs to me that all of these figures are for fresh corpses, what of corpses decomposing for 6 months or more?

That could mean massive reduction (80%?) in the fuel amount needed to reduce to bones.

The numbers in the table do include Muehlenkamp's estimates for the effects of decomposition. He assumes something like 8-10 kg for more decomposed bodies and more like 30 kg for the fresher ones. Averages out to 15 kg. Which is ridiculous.

Where are you getting 80% from? You need to lay off the AI.

[bombsaway]

Reminder that the Holocaust Controversies gurus think you can cremate a body with only 15 kilograms of wood.

Lest I be accused of straw-manning, here is the table, straight from their own "white paper."


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

It occurs to me that all of these figures are for fresh corpses, what of corpses decomposing for 6 months or more?

That could mean massive reduction (80%?) in the fuel amount needed to reduce to bones.

The numbers in the table do include Muehlenkamp's estimates for the effects of decomposition. He assumes something like 8-10 kg for more decomposed bodies and more like 30 kg for the fresher ones. Averages out to 15 kg. Which is ridiculous.

Where are you getting 80% from? You need to lay off the AI.

I'm not sure about that number.

But if a fresh body is 35 kg and decomposed is 10 kg, and cremains (non burnable) weigh 3 kg, that would mean

32 kg must be destroyed when fresh, and only 7 when decomposed, that's an 80% reduction.

This is significant and in your post here it's clear you're not taking it into account viewtopic.php?p=1104#p1104