Did Germany Have an Infinite Gasoline Hack I am Unaware of?

[Callafangers]

I think it's possible or likely you're overestimating the amount of wood/fuel needed by orders of magnitude, but anyway, Globocnik said these kinds of records has been destroyed, that's documented.

So your position is: the documents existed, then were destroyed. This isn't evidenced. Did Globocnik say, "we destroyed the liquid fuel documents"?

Also should be noted that far more data would have been generated concerning transportation, housing, supplying, feeding, securing millions of resettled Jews in the Occupied USSR, but this doesn't seem to bother you an iota.

Administration was non-existent in the east and your camp won the war and began a defamation campaign which naturally permits obfuscation (and is evidenced so, in some instances).

All the problems you point out here apply to your theory as well, to a much greater extent. And you have nothing like the Globocnik letter, it's all just speculative, which is why you're not doing history.

You're deflecting here, it's a fallacy called 'tu quoque'. Resettlement evidence or lack thereof has nothing to do with your laughable liquid fuel theory. You also lack solid fuel evidence, for that matter.

This isn't good, bombsaway.

[bombsaway]

I think it's possible or likely you're overestimating the amount of wood/fuel needed by orders of magnitude, but anyway, Globocnik said these kinds of records has been destroyed, that's documented.

So your position is: the documents existed, then were destroyed. This isn't evidenced. Did Globocnik say, "we destroyed the liquid fuel documents"?

Also should be noted that far more data would have been generated concerning transportation, housing, supplying, feeding, securing millions of resettled Jews in the Occupied USSR, but this doesn't seem to bother you an iota.

Administration was non-existent in the east and your camp won the war and began a defamation campaign which naturally permits obfuscation (and is evidenced so, in some instances).

All the problems you point out here apply to your theory as well, to a much greater extent. And you have nothing like the Globocnik letter, it's all just speculative, which is why you're not doing history.

You're deflecting here, it's a fallacy called 'tu quoque'. Resettlement evidence or lack thereof has nothing to do with your laughable liquid fuel theory. You also lack solid fuel evidence, for that matter.

This isn't good, bombsaway.

The deflection is to show your rank hypocrisy, nothing more

Globocnik said " There is one additional factor to be added to the total accounting of "Reinhardt" which is that the vouchers dealing with it must be destroyed as soon as possible after the data have already been destroyed by all other works concerned in this matter."

[Callafangers]

The deflection is to show your rank hypocrisy, nothing more

No, it's a fallacy -- tu quoque -- like I already said. That's your invalid argument but you can pretend its not. Do what you want.

Globocnik said " There is one additional factor to be added to the total accounting of "Reinhardt" which is that the vouchers dealing with it must be destroyed as soon as possible after the data have already been destroyed by all other works concerned in this matter."

This was a property sorting operation (seemingly conceded or implied by your use of "Reinhardt" with a 't'), so he's speaking of confiscated property.

Are you assuming he includes thousands of fuel tanker deliveries? You do at least acknowledge this as a [baseless] assumption, if so, right? I think it's fair to use the term "baseless" since not even your creative/fanciful Jewish witnesses claim these tankers were ever present.

[bombsaway]

The deflection is to show your rank hypocrisy, nothing more

No, it's a fallacy -- tu quoque -- like I already said. That's your invalid argument but you can pretend its not. Do what you want.

Globocnik said " There is one additional factor to be added to the total accounting of "Reinhardt" which is that the vouchers dealing with it must be destroyed as soon as possible after the data have already been destroyed by all other works concerned in this matter."

This was a property sorting operation (seemingly conceded or implied by your use of "Reinhardt" with a 't'), so he's speaking of confiscated property.

Are you assuming he includes thousands of fuel tanker deliveries? You do at least acknowledge this as a [baseless] assumption, if so, right? I think it's fair to use the term "baseless" since not even your creative/fanciful Jewish witnesses claim these tankers were ever present.

I don't think there was necessarily thousands of fuel tanker deliveries, nor did there have to be.

There's very little information about the Reinhardt camps from logistical perspective, so yeah I think these were destroyed.

[Callafangers]

I don't think there was necessarily thousands of fuel tanker deliveries, nor did there have to be.

There would have to be at least thousands to make any notable impact, which I provided the actual calculations for in my linked post (a few replies ago).

There's very little information about the Reinhardt camps from logistical perspective, so yeah I think these were destroyed.

"There's little information"
"Therefore, the destruction of the gasoline tanker evidence I assume exists is in there"

Bold, bombsaway. Very bold.

Go back and actually read the calculation (and chemistry source) I provided. I use it to quantify just how much wood is replaced per liter of liquid fuels. It's far less than you seem to assume.

[EDIT: I just checked it: 1 liter of gasoline replaces only about 3.7kg of wood. LOL]

[bombsaway]

I don't think there was necessarily thousands of fuel tanker deliveries, nor did there have to be.

There would have to be at least thousands to make any notable impact, which I provided the actual calculations for in my linked post (a few replies ago).

There's very little information about the Reinhardt camps from logistical perspective, so yeah I think these were destroyed.

"There's little information"
"Therefore, the destruction of the gasoline tanker evidence I assume exists is in there"

Bold, bombsaway. Very bold.

Go back and actually read the calculation (and chemistry source) I provided. I use it to quantify just how much wood is replaced per liter of liquid fuels. It's far less than you seem to assume.

[EDIT: I just checked it: 1 liter of gasoline replaces only about 3.7kg of wood. LOL]

Yeah I think you're over estimating the amount of fuel needed , thousands of tankers, I don't buy it. HC blog has made other estimates. Yet even if thousands of tankers were needed, the story is still more believable to me than the one you proffer, which has a small country of Jews being housed in USSR without a shred of evidence surfacing for it, even after decades. Sorry, that's just my opinion.

[Callafangers]

Yeah I think you're over estimating the amount of fuel needed , thousands of tankers, I don't buy it. HC blog has made other estimates. Yet even if thousands of tankers were needed, the story is still more believable to me than the one you proffer, which has a small country of Jews being housed in USSR without a shred of evidence surfacing for it, even after decades. Sorry, that's just my opinion.

Well, your opinion and what you "buy" or not has nothing to do with the actual debate or reality of the matter. But thanks for sharing, I guess?

The thousands of tankers, by the way, are just to reduce your required wood amount by some 10-15% (allotting some ten liters of gasoline per corpse), which does basically nothing for you. The HC blog has been conclusively and surgically deconstructed by Mattogno's recent works on the matter, summarized in the Holocaust Encyclopedia. There is nothing left to their (Hans, etc's) cherry-picking guesstimates.

But no worries, keep your opinion. Don't let the facts get in your way.