ELI5

[bombsaway]

Bombs, 2 things;

1) wood ash cannot be easily and readily separated from cremains and to a large degree would have been mixed with cremains and interred.

2) there is no liquid fuel source that fits the criteria as a fuel for the open air cremation of bodies. None. You cannot use a liquid fuel for the destruction of a body in an open air cremation. Nothing burns hot or long enough. You are left with wood or coal. Coal was not used. That leaves wood.

1) The cremains are smashed up bones. They're already separate from wood, which would be at the bottom of the pyre. And most wouldn't fall through. So, the assumption is, when you smash up the bones you don't mix them back in with the wood ash.

2) I simply don't believe liquid fuel can't be used here. At Dresden bodies were burned this way without wood or coal that I can even see. https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-P4DABgERilQ/ ... 45+(1).JPG

The simple fact seems to be that aren't many examples of bodies being burned like this that can be examined. If revisionists say it's impossible, maybe it is, but it hasn't been conclusively demonstrated to me.

[Stubble]

Bombs, 2 things;

1) wood ash cannot be easily and readily separated from cremains and to a large degree would have been mixed with cremains and interred.

2) there is no liquid fuel source that fits the criteria as a fuel for the open air cremation of bodies. None. You cannot use a liquid fuel for the destruction of a body in an open air cremation. Nothing burns hot or long enough. You are left with wood or coal. Coal was not used. That leaves wood.

1) The cremains are smashed up bones. They're already separate from wood, which would be at the bottom of the pyre. And most wouldn't fall through. So, the assumption is, when you smash up the bones you don't mix them back in with the wood ash.

2) I simply don't believe liquid fuel can't be used here. At Dresden bodies were burned this way without wood or coal that I can even see. https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-P4DABgERilQ/ ... 45+(1).JPG

The simple fact seems to be that aren't many examples of bodies being burned like this that can be examined. If revisionists say it's impossible, maybe it is, but it hasn't been conclusively demonstrated to me.

To point 1) this is supposition on your part as cremains are not limited to bone and if it were just bone, ash would be excluded, which it wasn't.

To point 2) another thing to consider is that the bodies in Dresden did not go through complete destruction by fire, which is obvious on examination. For a primary hygienic purpose, such a method is suitable, but, for complete destruction of remains a different method would need to be used. Most likely diesel was the fuel used for the public pyres of Dresden and if I recall correctly the SOP calls for layers of wood between the bodies. I'd have to reference a manual to be certain.

[bombsaway]

Bombs, 2 things;

1) wood ash cannot be easily and readily separated from cremains and to a large degree would have been mixed with cremains and interred.

2) there is no liquid fuel source that fits the criteria as a fuel for the open air cremation of bodies. None. You cannot use a liquid fuel for the destruction of a body in an open air cremation. Nothing burns hot or long enough. You are left with wood or coal. Coal was not used. That leaves wood.

1) The cremains are smashed up bones. They're already separate from wood, which would be at the bottom of the pyre. And most wouldn't fall through. So, the assumption is, when you smash up the bones you don't mix them back in with the wood ash.

2) I simply don't believe liquid fuel can't be used here. At Dresden bodies were burned this way without wood or coal that I can even see. https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-P4DABgERilQ/ ... 45+(1).JPG

The simple fact seems to be that aren't many examples of bodies being burned like this that can be examined. If revisionists say it's impossible, maybe it is, but it hasn't been conclusively demonstrated to me.

To point 1) this is supposition on your part as cremains are not limited to bone and if it were just bone, ash would be excluded, which it wasn't.

To point 2) another thing to consider is that the bodies in Dresden did not go through complete destruction by fire, which is obvious on examination. For a primary hygienic purpose, such a method is suitable, but, for complete destruction of remains a different method would need to be used. Most likely diesel was the fuel used for the public pyres of Dresden and if I recall correctly the SOP calls for layers of wood between the bodies. I'd have to reference a manual to be certain.

What are cremains? Be specific. When I looked up definitions it says they're bone fragments, confused for ashes (because they look like ashes) https://www.williamsfh.com/what-are-cre ... 0particles.

2. "which is obvious on examination." show me evidence of this please. But . . . even if bodies weren't completely burned, the bones were still clearly smashed up into tiny fragments. Maybe there was some flesh there too, but I imagine it all didn't fall through to the wood below.

[Stubble]

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cremains

cremains
plural noun
cre·​mains kri-ˈmānz
: the ashes of a cremated human body

(The proper dictionary definition specifically excludes the bones)

For point 2, one need only look at the smoldering remains to see the amount of unburned material. The same is true for the famous picture of the United States Army personnel examining a pyre near a concentration camp with the twisted rails and incompleteness of cremation. Also, solid fuel was the predominant fuel source for the latter example, although with the former, it is unclear how much solid fuel was used. I'd have to check the SOP but if venturing a guess, I'd say 10 gallons of diesel were used.

I'll consult an army field manual for expedient outdoor cremation to see if I can find specificity about field application and procedure. I can't see the process having changed much in the last 100 years or differing much between armies.

[bombsaway]

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cremains

cremains
plural noun
cre·​mains kri-ˈmānz
: the ashes of a cremated human body

(The proper dictionary definition specifically excludes the bones)

For point 2, one need only look at the smoldering remains to see the amount of unburned material. The same is true for the famous picture of the United States Army personnel examining a pyre near a concentration camp with the twisted rails and incompleteness of cremation. Also, solid fuel was the predominant fuel source for the latter example, although with the former, it is unclear how much solid fuel was used. I'd have to check the SOP but if venturing a guess, I'd say 10 gallons of diesel were used.

I'll consult an army field manual for expedient outdoor cremation to see if I can find specificity about field application and procedure. I can't see the process having changed much in the last 100 years or differing much between armies.

But look here https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cremated

In the pic I linked to, you think that's a completed burning?

[Stubble]

Look, have you ever observed a cremation? When I assisted in the cremation of my father we removed and pulverized the bone and we collected the ashes. We deposited the cremains in total in the urn.

Consider if you will just the iron, copper and other inflammables that constitute your body. To say 'it's just bone' is a simplification.

Go look at other pictures. The one you linked is smouldering, ie in final stages nearing completion or freshly set. I lean toward freshly set because of the state of clothing. There are certainly post pictures however and they looks strikingly similar to pre pictures, although the lips generally curl back and the teeth are exposed. Also the eyes generally explode leaving empty sockets.

[HansHill]

Quote from the study please, I don't know what you're referring to

[bombsaway]

Look, have you ever observed a cremation? When I assisted in the cremation of my father we removed and pulverized the bone and we collected the ashes. We deposited the cremains in total in the urn.

So the pulverized bones were not part of it? I really don't understand. Every source I've looked at has described the "ashes" as primarily consisting of pulverized bones.

Cremains (cremated remains) are almost entirely derived from bones, as the cremation process incinerates all organic matter (tissues, organs, etc.), leaving only inorganic bone fragments. Here's a detailed breakdown:

Percentage of Cremains from Bones
Primary Source:
After cremation, 95–100% of cremains originate from bone fragments. The high temperatures (1,400–1,800°F) vaporize soft tissues and organic compounds, reducing the body to calcined bone material, which is then pulverized into the coarse, sand-like substance returned to families 1711.

Chemical Composition:
The bone-derived cremains consist mainly of calcium phosphate (tri-calcium phosphate), formed when hydroxyapatite in bones converts under heat. Minor components include trace minerals (sodium, potassium) and carbonates, which are naturally present in bones 2711.

Weight Contribution:
Cremains typically weigh 3.5% of the original body weight (e.g., a 175 lb person yields ~6 lbs of cremains). This percentage reflects the skeletal system’s inorganic mineral content, as bones account for nearly all post-cremation material 248.

Exceptions:
Small amounts of non-bone material (e.g., dental fillings, surgical implants) may remain, but these are usually removed via magnets or manual sorting. Such residues contribute minimally (<5%) to total cremains 111.

Why Bones Dominate Cremains
Heat Resistance: Bones contain inorganic minerals (calcium phosphate) that withstand cremation temperatures, unlike organic tissues, which combust entirely 711.

Post-Processing: After cooling, bone fragments are mechanically pulverized into "ashes," ensuring the final product is almost exclusively bone-derived 16.

Factors Affecting Variability
Bone Density: Younger individuals or those with denser bones may yield slightly more cremains 4.

Trace Elements: Minerals absorbed during life (e.g., copper, strontium) remain in bones but do not significantly alter the overall bone-derived percentage 17.

In summary, cremains are ~95–100% bone-derived, with negligible contributions from non-skeletal sources after proper processing.

So maybe a small amount would fall through into the wood at the bottom, but mostly it's just bones.

re the Dresden picture, those bodies look barely burned to me. I can still see hair even, that's usually the first to go. It seems like a critical part of your argument here is that that's a finished product, and I just don't see justification for that. You haven't shown me any other evidence as well.

[Stubble]

Look, have you ever observed a cremation? When I assisted in the cremation of my father we removed and pulverized the bone and we collected the ashes. We deposited the cremains in total in the urn.

So the pulverized bones were not part of it? I really don't understand. Every source I've looked at has described the "ashes" as primarily consisting of pulverized bones.

Cremains (cremated remains) are almost entirely derived from bones, as the cremation process incinerates all organic matter (tissues, organs, etc.), leaving only inorganic bone fragments. Here's a detailed breakdown:

Percentage of Cremains from Bones
Primary Source:
After cremation, 95–100% of cremains originate from bone fragments. The high temperatures (1,400–1,800°F) vaporize soft tissues and organic compounds, reducing the body to calcined bone material, which is then pulverized into the coarse, sand-like substance returned to families 1711.

Chemical Composition:
The bone-derived cremains consist mainly of calcium phosphate (tri-calcium phosphate), formed when hydroxyapatite in bones converts under heat. Minor components include trace minerals (sodium, potassium) and carbonates, which are naturally present in bones 2711.

Weight Contribution:
Cremains typically weigh 3.5% of the original body weight (e.g., a 175 lb person yields ~6 lbs of cremains). This percentage reflects the skeletal system’s inorganic mineral content, as bones account for nearly all post-cremation material 248.

Exceptions:
Small amounts of non-bone material (e.g., dental fillings, surgical implants) may remain, but these are usually removed via magnets or manual sorting. Such residues contribute minimally (<5%) to total cremains 111.

Why Bones Dominate Cremains
Heat Resistance: Bones contain inorganic minerals (calcium phosphate) that withstand cremation temperatures, unlike organic tissues, which combust entirely 711.

Post-Processing: After cooling, bone fragments are mechanically pulverized into "ashes," ensuring the final product is almost exclusively bone-derived 16.

Factors Affecting Variability
Bone Density: Younger individuals or those with denser bones may yield slightly more cremains 4.

Trace Elements: Minerals absorbed during life (e.g., copper, strontium) remain in bones but do not significantly alter the overall bone-derived percentage 17.

In summary, cremains are ~95–100% bone-derived, with negligible contributions from non-skeletal sources after proper processing.

So maybe a small amount would fall through into the wood at the bottom, but mostly it's just bones.

re the Dresden picture, those bodies look barely burned to me. I can still see hair even, that's usually the first to go. It seems like a critical part of your argument here is that that's a finished product, and I just don't see justification for that. You haven't shown me any other evidence as well.

You are correct, you don't understand.

You are asserting that the cremains in the kola study are 'pulverized bone' free from wood ash, correct? Let's try to make this simple and clear as not to further muddy the waters.

One of my points was that kola states ash in the study as well as cremains, pulverized bone if you prefer. Another point was that when I cremated my father, we didn't just pulverize bone and put it in the urn, we also included his cremains which we carefully gathered and put in the urn.

For Dresden, I reiterate that that picture you posted appears to be pre completion, right at the start. If you look at a post process picture it wont look all that different. There will simply be surface burning not complete destruction. Not even close.

Look at the picture from that buchenwald satellite camp where the United States Army is reviewing what was left after that open air cremation. Note the lack of destruction.

Of course, this is a diversion from the drive of this thread however and we should engage in this discussion further any any of the other appropriate threads.

I apologize for my engagement in thread drift.

[bombsaway]

You are asserting that the cremains in the kola study are 'pulverized bone' free from wood ash, correct?

Yes. After the bodies had been burnt sufficiently they removed them from the pyres and destroyed them. Then that pulverized bone was mixed with sand and deposited back into the graves in layers. I don't see why they would be mixed with the wood ash (which according to testimony was placed under the bodies).

[Stubble]

You are asserting that the cremains in the kola study are 'pulverized bone' free from wood ash, correct?

Yes. After the bodies had been burnt sufficiently they removed them from the pyres and destroyed them. Then that pulverized bone was mixed with sand and deposited back into the graves in layers. I don't see why they would be mixed with the wood ash (which according to testimony was placed under the bodies).

Then why is there a delineation between the sample contents made specifically citing ash content and cremains content? I'd mark that as inconstant with the assertion, wouldn't you?

[bombsaway]

You are asserting that the cremains in the kola study are 'pulverized bone' free from wood ash, correct?

Yes. After the bodies had been burnt sufficiently they removed them from the pyres and destroyed them. Then that pulverized bone was mixed with sand and deposited back into the graves in layers. I don't see why they would be mixed with the wood ash (which according to testimony was placed under the bodies).

Then why is there a delineation between the sample contents made specifically citing ash content and cremains content? I'd mark that as inconstant with the assertion, wouldn't you?

When he has crematory ashes and crematory remains he is just being imprecise, making a common error about cremains because they look like ashes. I don't know what body ashes even would be, minus bone fragments

"over 2 meter thick intensive layer of charcoal with small amounts of crematory ashes"

According to your view here he means , wood ash with small amounts of wood ash? This makes even less sense to me.



Your

[Stubble]

No, he is being precise and you are being imprecise, hopefully unintentionally.

For example, charcoal, what part of cremains constitute charcoal.

He is precise when he states ash, cremains or bone fragments. Not imprecise and intentionally confusing somehow by making the delineation.

[TlsMS93]

No, he is being precise and you are being imprecise, hopefully unintentionally.

For example, charcoal, what part of cremains constitute charcoal.

He is precise when he states ash, cremains or bone fragments. Not imprecise and intentionally confusing somehow by making the delineation.

They said that Belzec used wood, coal is a strange component in this narrative, especially because wood does not turn into coal that way, it requires water and pressure, which was missing in the narrative.

In fact, they found a lot of things in these pits, strange things that were unrelated to a clean-up operation, at a time when they knew that the Soviets, in retaliation for Katyn, would search every corner of a German settlement in search of anything to incriminate them and, of course, find witnesses, as they did in Katyn.

[Stubble]

No, he is being precise and you are being imprecise, hopefully unintentionally.

For example, charcoal, what part of cremains constitute charcoal.

He is precise when he states ash, cremains or bone fragments. Not imprecise and intentionally confusing somehow by making the delineation.

They said that Belzec used wood, coal is a strange component in this narrative, especially because wood does not turn into coal that way, it requires water and pressure, which was missing in the narrative.

In fact, they found a lot of things in these pits, strange things that were unrelated to a clean-up operation, at a time when they knew that the Soviets, in retaliation for Katyn, would search every corner of a German settlement in search of anything to incriminate them and, of course, find witnesses, as they did in Katyn.

Na, carbon from woodburning would be referred to as coal although that's not in the strictest definition what is commonly meant. It's not lignite or anything. Still commonly referred to as coal however.

Hence charcoal