The CODOH Revisionist Forum

blake121666 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 8:21 pm A material is typically built to work within its temperature range. Hence the term "break-in temperature". Going above or below that range can be bad.

OK so after acknowledging that high temperatures damage refractory, you are back to denying it and saying it's been "broken in". OK bro.

Also I don't get why you're acting like the issue of changing temperatures being bad is not acknowledged by Mattogno. He quotes a letter to that effect on pp. 294-295.

blake121666 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 06, 2025 4:47 pm The operating instructions there are for the ovens to be loaded with another corpse after the first has gone through its main combustion. With such procedure one would get, in the long run, the average cremation rate equaling the throughput rate of corpses. For example, if you average one corpse inserted per 30 minutes then in the long run that will end up being the average cremation rate - even though the parts of the prior corpse(s) incinerating overlaps with that of the additional corpse. And therefore it should be noted that the time for any particular corpse to be said to be fully incinerated is of course much longer than this average throughput time.

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding. I get your point about trying to speed things up by staggering the insertion, but the Topf furnaces (at A-B) had a vertical grate system that doesn't allow for the acceleration you're suggesting. Mattogno's analysis showed that these were designed to need about an hour per corpse because the next body can only go in once the previous one has burned and dropped through the grate into the ash chamber. You can overlap cremations for about 20 minutes during that post-combustion phase but that doesn't change that the actual cremation time stays around an hour per corpse. The coke consumption rates—23.3 kg for a normal corpse, 27.8 kg for an average one, and 32.3 kg for a lean one—along with the fixed grate-throughput rate of 33.3 kg per hour, basically lock the timing in place. Although your approach bumps up the overall throughput to some extent, the design of these ovens, with a need for complete combustion before they can handle another body, is a hard bottleneck that is not bypassed by anything you have suggested, here.

Callafangers wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 8:49 pm

blake121666 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 06, 2025 4:47 pm The operating instructions there are for the ovens to be loaded with another corpse after the first has gone through its main combustion. With such procedure one would get, in the long run, the average cremation rate equaling the throughput rate of corpses. For example, if you average one corpse inserted per 30 minutes then in the long run that will end up being the average cremation rate - even though the parts of the prior corpse(s) incinerating overlaps with that of the additional corpse. And therefore it should be noted that the time for any particular corpse to be said to be fully incinerated is of course much longer than this average throughput time.

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding. I get your point about trying to speed things up by staggering the insertion, but the Topf furnaces (at A-B) had a vertical grate system that doesn't allow for the acceleration you're suggesting. Mattogno's analysis showed that these were designed to need about an hour per corpse because the next body can only go in once the previous one has burned and dropped through the grate into the ash chamber. You can overlap cremations for about 20 minutes during that post-combustion phase but that doesn't change that the actual cremation time stays around an hour per corpse. The coke consumption rates—23.3 kg for a normal corpse, 27.8 kg for an average one, and 32.3 kg for a lean one—along with the fixed grate-throughput rate of 33.3 kg per hour, basically lock the timing in place. Although your approach bumps up the overall throughput to some extent, the design of these ovens, with a need for complete combustion before they can handle another body, is a hard bottleneck that is not bypassed by anything you have suggested, here.

That's absolutely right. Well stated. I'm baffled these people still think revisionists haven't gone through and done the math a million times over, like we're missing some key point that would suddenly render their insane fantasies physically viable. The mid-winter, sub-zero unearthing of millions of corpses in the A-R camps is a similar issue that simply never gets addressed, ever.

fireofice wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 8:35 pm

blake121666 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 8:21 pm A material is typically built to work within its temperature range. Hence the term "break-in temperature". Going above or below that range can be bad.

OK so after acknowledging that high temperatures damage refractory, you are back to denying it and saying it's been "broken in". OK bro.

Also I don't get why you're acting like the issue of changing temperatures being bad is not acknowledged by Mattogno. He quotes a letter to that effect on pp. 294-295.

The material is made to operate within its operating temperature range. I said nothing like what you are saying here. IOW, it is most certainly unequivocally NOT the case that "high temperatures damage refractory". I have been telling you the EXACT OPPOSITE of that! What you are referring to as "refractory" is made for its operating high temperature range and not outside that. Cooling the oven STRESSES the "refractory". How do you not understand that? The material "breaks in" to its operating temperature range that it designed to work in.

I have never never never ever ever ever claimed that "high temperatures damage refractory". You are something else! WTF? Are you a native English speaker?

Just to be absolutely clear here: COOLING DOWN THE OVEN IS A BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD IDEA. Do you understand that I am stating that? And why I am telling you that, mister laughing emoticon who must be reading something into what I wrote other than what I wrote?

Callafangers wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 8:49 pm

blake121666 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 06, 2025 4:47 pm The operating instructions there are for the ovens to be loaded with another corpse after the first has gone through its main combustion. With such procedure one would get, in the long run, the average cremation rate equaling the throughput rate of corpses. For example, if you average one corpse inserted per 30 minutes then in the long run that will end up being the average cremation rate - even though the parts of the prior corpse(s) incinerating overlaps with that of the additional corpse. And therefore it should be noted that the time for any particular corpse to be said to be fully incinerated is of course much longer than this average throughput time.

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding. I get your point about trying to speed things up by staggering the insertion, but the Topf furnaces (at A-B) had a vertical grate system that doesn't allow for the acceleration you're suggesting. Mattogno's analysis showed that these were designed to need about an hour per corpse because the next body can only go in once the previous one has burned and dropped through the grate into the ash chamber. You can overlap cremations for about 20 minutes during that post-combustion phase but that doesn't change that the actual cremation time stays around an hour per corpse. The coke consumption rates—23.3 kg for a normal corpse, 27.8 kg for an average one, and 32.3 kg for a lean one—along with the fixed grate-throughput rate of 33.3 kg per hour, basically lock the timing in place. Although your approach bumps up the overall throughput to some extent, the design of these ovens, with a need for complete combustion before they can handle another body, is a hard bottleneck that is not bypassed by anything you have suggested, here.

What you wrote is pretty incoherent. You wrote:

You can overlap cremations for about 20 minutes during that post-combustion phase but that doesn't change that the actual cremation time stays around an hour per corpse

But then the average of the ensemble would be lower by your own logic, right? I'm telling you that the average on a per-corpse basis would actually be longer. Mattogno is confused and has not shown what you say, he has incorrectly ASSUMED that which the data he refers to tells otherwise.

The tally sheets show that the time intervals between corpse insertion could not have been longer than 40 minutes. And in the long run THAT is the average cremation rate - not longer than 1 per 40 minutes. THAT is what the documents he references are saying. No one should give a flying fuck what amount of time it takes any particular individual corpse to fully incinerate. At the end of the day a corpse was inserted into that muffle at time intervals not greater than 40 minutes.

blake121666 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 2:19 am

fireofice wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 8:35 pm

blake121666 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 8:21 pm A material is typically built to work within its temperature range. Hence the term "break-in temperature". Going above or below that range can be bad.

OK so after acknowledging that high temperatures damage refractory, you are back to denying it and saying it's been "broken in". OK bro.

Also I don't get why you're acting like the issue of changing temperatures being bad is not acknowledged by Mattogno. He quotes a letter to that effect on pp. 294-295.

The material is made to operate within its operating temperature range. I said nothing like what you are saying here. IOW, it is most certainly unequivocally NOT the case that "high temperatures damage refractory". I have been telling you the EXACT OPPOSITE of that! What you are referring to as "refractory" is made for its operating high temperature range and not outside that. Cooling the oven STRESSES the "refractory". How do you not understand that? The material "breaks in" to its operating temperature range that it designed to work in.

I have never never never ever ever ever claimed that "high temperatures damage refractory". You are something else! WTF? Are you a native English speaker?

Just to be absolutely clear here: COOLING DOWN THE OVEN IS A BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD IDEA. Do you understand that I am stating that? And why I am telling you that, mister laughing emoticon who must be reading something into what I wrote other than what I wrote?

Well let's see, in response to me providing evidence that high temps damage the refractory, you said:

Other things can of course damage it though. I did not claim otherwise.

So you just said that for no reason? OK then. The evidence still shows that high sustained temperatures damage refractory and the fact that changing temperatures also harms it doesn't change that.

fireofice wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 2:39 am

blake121666 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 2:19 am

fireofice wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 8:35 pm
OK so after acknowledging that high temperatures damage refractory, you are back to denying it and saying it's been "broken in". OK bro.

Also I don't get why you're acting like the issue of changing temperatures being bad is not acknowledged by Mattogno. He quotes a letter to that effect on pp. 294-295.

The material is made to operate within its operating temperature range. I said nothing like what you are saying here. IOW, it is most certainly unequivocally NOT the case that "high temperatures damage refractory". I have been telling you the EXACT OPPOSITE of that! What you are referring to as "refractory" is made for its operating high temperature range and not outside that. Cooling the oven STRESSES the "refractory". How do you not understand that? The material "breaks in" to its operating temperature range that it designed to work in.

I have never never never ever ever ever claimed that "high temperatures damage refractory". You are something else! WTF? Are you a native English speaker?

Just to be absolutely clear here: COOLING DOWN THE OVEN IS A BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD IDEA. Do you understand that I am stating that? And why I am telling you that, mister laughing emoticon who must be reading something into what I wrote other than what I wrote?

Well let's see, in response to me providing evidence that high temps damage the refractory, you said:

Other things can of course damage it though. I did not claim otherwise.

So you just said that for no reason? OK then. The evidence still shows that high sustained temperatures damage refractory and the fact that changing temperatures also harms it doesn't change that.

Other things, yes. The material is made to operate in the temperature range it is made for. And that is a high temperature range. A higher temperature range than it is made for would be bad as well. Surely you understand that?

I confess that I misinterpreted your prior post after reading this one. I did not say what you think I said before but now see how you misinterpreted me. I was not making any admission of the kind you thought.

blake121666" wrote:The tally sheets show that the time intervals between corpse insertion could not have been longer than 40 minutes.

No that's the minimum.

"Mattogno misunderstood because...he just did OK??? I'm definitely not making shit up, trust me bro."

Other things, yes. The material is made to operate in the temperature range it is made for. And that is a high temperature range. A higher temperature range than it is made for would be bad as well. Surely you understand that?

"I made this building not to collapse, so if I set it on fire it won't collapse."

curioussoul wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 10:33 pm

Callafangers wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 8:49 pm

blake121666 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 06, 2025 4:47 pm The operating instructions there are for the ovens to be loaded with another corpse after the first has gone through its main combustion. With such procedure one would get, in the long run, the average cremation rate equaling the throughput rate of corpses. For example, if you average one corpse inserted per 30 minutes then in the long run that will end up being the average cremation rate - even though the parts of the prior corpse(s) incinerating overlaps with that of the additional corpse. And therefore it should be noted that the time for any particular corpse to be said to be fully incinerated is of course much longer than this average throughput time.

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding. I get your point about trying to speed things up by staggering the insertion, but the Topf furnaces (at A-B) had a vertical grate system that doesn't allow for the acceleration you're suggesting. Mattogno's analysis showed that these were designed to need about an hour per corpse because the next body can only go in once the previous one has burned and dropped through the grate into the ash chamber. You can overlap cremations for about 20 minutes during that post-combustion phase but that doesn't change that the actual cremation time stays around an hour per corpse. The coke consumption rates—23.3 kg for a normal corpse, 27.8 kg for an average one, and 32.3 kg for a lean one—along with the fixed grate-throughput rate of 33.3 kg per hour, basically lock the timing in place. Although your approach bumps up the overall throughput to some extent, the design of these ovens, with a need for complete combustion before they can handle another body, is a hard bottleneck that is not bypassed by anything you have suggested, here.

That's absolutely right. Well stated. I'm baffled these people still think revisionists haven't gone through and done the math a million times over, like we're missing some key point that would suddenly render their insane fantasies physically viable. The mid-winter, sub-zero unearthing of millions of corpses in the A-R camps is a similar issue that simply never gets addressed, ever.

WTF? How do you not understand the "math" we are discussing here?

Maybe I'll go over a tally sheet for you to understand Mattogno's mistake tomorrow?

Crazy! Utterly bonkers post.

Mattogno is claiming that ALL the German estimates were wrong but he is right! Yeah right, Mattogno; that's what it must be!

fireofice wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 2:49 am

blake121666" wrote:The tally sheets show that the time intervals between corpse insertion could not have been longer than 40 minutes.

No that's the minimum.

"Mattogno misunderstood because...he just did OK??? I'm definitely not making shit up, trust me bro."

Other things, yes. The material is made to operate in the temperature range it is made for. And that is a high temperature range. A higher temperature range than it is made for would be bad as well. Surely you understand that?

"I made this building not to collapse, so if I set it on fire it won't collapse."

We'll go over the Gusen tally sheet tomorrow, ok? The logic in it is trivially easy to understand. Then we will relate that logic to ALL the contemporary German estimates and ask if they were all wrong and instead Mattogno is right.

Is that a "he just did [misunderstand]" response in your brain?

blake121666 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 2:36 am
What you wrote is pretty incoherent. You wrote:

You can overlap cremations for about 20 minutes during that post-combustion phase but that doesn't change that the actual cremation time stays around an hour per corpse

But then the average of the ensemble would be lower by your own logic, right? I'm telling you that the average on a per-corpse basis would actually be longer. Mattogno is confused and has not shown what you say, he has incorrectly ASSUMED that which the data he refers to tells otherwise.

The tally sheets show that the time intervals between corpse insertion could not have been longer than 40 minutes. And in the long run THAT is the average cremation rate - not longer than 1 per 40 minutes. THAT is what the documents he references are saying. No one should give a flying fuck what amount of time it takes any particular individual corpse to fully incinerate. At the end of the day a corpse was inserted into that muffle at time intervals not greater than 40 minutes.

You're conflating data from different contexts, specifically using a tally sheet from Gusen, which doesn't apply to Auschwitz-Birkenau. Mattogno's analysis focuses on the Topf furnaces at Birkenau, which had a vertical grate system requiring complete combustion of one corpse before introducing another, inherently limiting the process to about an hour per corpse. The 20-minute overlap during post-combustion doesn't change this fundamental limitation. Topf engineers Prüfer and Schultze confirmed during their interrogations that the cremation rate was indeed one corpse per muffle per hour. Moreover, the forced-draft system at Birkenau was shared among multiple furnaces, making it less effective than the dedicated system at Gusen. Your focus on insertion intervals does not account for the actual cremation time needed for each corpse, which remains constrained by the furnace's design, fuel consumption rates, and the less efficient forced-draft system at A-B.

Callafangers wrote: ↑Thu Dec 26, 2024 4:05 am ... I think it is due time to once again discuss this index more directly....

I will just point out that this 'Index' symbolizes the primary exterminationist tactic, overall: that is, the most aggressive 'Gish gallop' they can muster on any issue (which tends to be quite effective, given their long-standing monopoly on freedom and resources). With that said, it is worth noting that this Index is no doubt the most comprehensive and complete summary of 'gassing' evidence at Auschwitz-Birkenau anywhere.

A complaint that there is too much evidence being presented at one time, is followed by praise the evidence is comprehensive and summarised. Revisionism survives on the incorrect claim that gassings are insufficiently evidenced and that something else, which they cannot agree on, let alone evidence, happened.

This is the "whole enchilada", so to speak. So, anyone trying to understand the truth [or lack thereof] of the 'Holocaust' at A-B must ask himself: is this all it takes to prove 'genocidal gassing' and millions killed, especially given the vast pattern of anti-German lies, obfuscation, revenge-seeking, subversion and much more?

The vast majority of the evidence in the index comes from the Nazis themselves. All the documents, many of the witnesses and the physical evidence, is related to the running of the Kremas by German camp staff and civilian contractors.

If that volume of evidence was left by Jewish camp staff, about the gassing of Germans, revisionists would accept it as proof positive, without any question.

Did many of these Jews not simply survive in Europe and disperse around the world, post-war?

No, as that is not evidenced to have happened and there is evidence to the contrary.

As we have seen here, only with careful curation of vague statements and "code words" can the narrative approach a superficial presentation as being valid. But with fair scrutiny, even this "whole enchilada" falls apart.

The use of the term "special" is claimed to by revisionists to be a code word for showering, or is it delousing, or storing corpses, or sheltering from bombs, they can never make their minds up. Why use a code word for something innocuous?

I haven't found a single document in this cited blog that is presented for what it is. For example, you keep talking about 'the undressing room', and your proof for this, is a request by Dr Wirths for an undressing room, an autopsy room and a washroom in the vestibule (a request which was not granted by the way).

Now you are on about a heating system for lk1 at Kremas II and III.

The first document you pointed to was a complaint written by the camp authority that the intake air fan motor had failed and that not only would they not pay for it, but, they would be taking a steel ration from the builder.

Now, there are some other documents in there that talk about potentially 'preheating' the corpses in lk1. I'm going to ask you something, are you familiar with sublimation? You probably don't want that to happen in a body you are loading into a cremation oven...

Now, this idea wasn't pursued. Another that wasn't pursued was a heat exchanger and boiler to produce hot water for showers proposed by Dr Wirths. There are a lot of things that were proposed and not adopted.

At the end of the day though, the presentation of these documents is uniformly out of context and disingenuous. The Kremas II and III didn't have between them a dozen gas tight doors, did they, yet you present the invoices as proof of homicidal gassing.

Things not even attached to the Kremas in any way are presented like the warehouses for the disinfection and storage of property.

This blog post is tripe and is certainly not the smoking gun you think it is.

Actually read these documents, then look at their context, then look at how they are being framed. It is a miscarriage. An absolute miscarriage.

Stubble wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 8:32 am I haven't found a single document in this cited blog that is presented for what it is. For example, you keep talking about 'the undressing room', and your proof for this, is a request by Dr Wirths for an undressing room, an autopsy room and a washroom in the vestibule (a request which was not granted by the way).

Proof of an undressing room comes from all the witnesses who worked inside the Kremas, the circumstantial evidence of the theft of prisoner property and the documents that refer to an undressing room. Not just the Wirths document, but also

"Letter from Karl Bischoff to Topf of 6 March 1943 on “preheating cellar 1” and “undressing room” in crematorium 2 and 3 [Pressac, Technique, p. 433]"

"Working time sheet from Heinrich Messing of 14 March 1943 on “undressing cellar 2” in crematorium 2 [Pressac, Technique, p. 434]"

"Work time sheet from Heinrich Messing of 13 April 1943 on “undressing cellar” in crematorium 3 [Pressac, Technique, p. 439] "

Now you are on about a heating system for lk1 at Kremas II and III.

The first document you pointed to was a complaint written by the camp authority that the intake air fan motor had failed and that not only would they not pay for it, but, they would be taking a steel ration from the builder.

Now, there are some other documents in there that talk about potentially 'preheating' the corpses in lk1. I'm going to ask you something, are you familiar with sublimation? You probably don't want that to happen in a body you are loading into a cremation oven...

Now, this idea wasn't pursued. Another that wasn't pursued was a heat exchanger and boiler to produce hot water for showers proposed by Dr Wirths. There are a lot of things that were proposed and not adopted.

At the end of the day though, the presentation of these documents is uniformly out of context and disingenuous.

No, they are a perfect fit with what the witnesses say happened.

The Kremas II and III didn't have between them a dozen gas tight doors, did they, yet you present the invoices as proof of homicidal gassing.

I present documents referring to gas tight doors and windows as part of the evidence, not as proof in itself.

Things not even attached to the Kremas in any way are presented like the warehouses for the disinfection and storage of property.

This blog post is tripe and is certainly not the smoking gun you think it is.

Actually read these documents, then look at their context, then look at how they are being framed. It is a miscarriage. An absolute miscarriage.

The documents, witnesses and circumstantial evidence fits and corroborates, mass gassings took place. You cannot evidence something else took place within the Kremas.

As you ignore the morgue documents and derail that thread with material you should be presenting here.

Furthermore, wow, Archie was right. If I can't prove that I bathed in my tub, then apparently every missing puppy in the united states has been drown in it, because I cannot evidence otherwise...

Again, I've been through most of these documents, and I have also managed to get some of the surrounding memoranda by going to these cited sources and tracking things back.

What I have found is a bunch of misrepresentation of documents presented in isolation with 'code words' or mistranslations touted as evidence of homicidal intent.

As an example, I cite that Wirths memo. You just brush this away and don't acknowledge that it doesn't belong in the 'Auschwitz Index' as it is being presented, oh no, instead, you simply perry and say, well, there is the other document that I don't think you have looked at yet which obviously proves the point, because, eyewitnesses....

Bro, do you even hear yourself?

Then there is the absolute failure to address the memo about the motor and its misrepresentation and your repeated use of words that never appear in it.

All you are trying to do is muddy the water.

Present facts, don't just throw a bunch of bullshit in the room and then say 'muh eyewitnesses'...