The CODOH Revisionist Forum

bombsaway wrote: ↑Mon Oct 13, 2025 5:49 pm 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"?

bombsaway wrote: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).

bombsaway wrote: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.

Callafangers wrote: ↑Mon Oct 13, 2025 6:27 pm

bombsaway wrote: ↑Mon Oct 13, 2025 5:49 pm 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"?

bombsaway wrote: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).

bombsaway wrote: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."

bombsaway wrote: ↑Mon Oct 13, 2025 7:10 pm 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.

bombsaway wrote: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.

Callafangers wrote: ↑Mon Oct 13, 2025 7:30 pm

bombsaway wrote: ↑Mon Oct 13, 2025 7:10 pm 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.

bombsaway wrote: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.

bombsaway wrote: ↑Mon Oct 13, 2025 7:35 pm
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).

bombsaway wrote: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]

Callafangers wrote: ↑Mon Oct 13, 2025 9:54 pm

bombsaway wrote: ↑Mon Oct 13, 2025 7:35 pm
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).

bombsaway wrote: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.

bombsaway wrote: ↑Mon Oct 13, 2025 11:02 pm 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.

Right back at you

bombsaway wrote: ↑Mon Oct 13, 2025 11:47 pm Right back at you

Oh, there's a misunderstanding. I follow the evidence. In the case of Jewish resettlement, there is at least a basis given it's the documented German policy (which you claim changed at some point). But for your liquid fuel theory, it's totally thin-air.

Callafangers wrote: ↑Tue Oct 14, 2025 12:00 am

bombsaway wrote: ↑Mon Oct 13, 2025 11:47 pm Right back at you

Oh, there's a misunderstanding. I follow the evidence. In the case of Jewish resettlement, there is at least a basis given it's the documented German policy (which you claim changed at some point). But for your liquid fuel theory, it's totally thin-air.

That liquid fuel was used is noted consistently in the witness record. There's direct evidence for it. I admit that there's no direct evidence that liquid fuel was the main fuel source, that's just my speculation given the low amount of wood ash found in the graves.

bombsaway wrote: ↑Tue Oct 14, 2025 12:44 am That liquid fuel was used is noted consistently in the witness record. There's direct evidence for it. I admit that there's no direct evidence that liquid fuel was the main fuel source, that's just my speculation given the low amount of wood ash found in the graves.

bombsaway, you're not understanding something: even if we assume some 10 liters of gasoline per corpse, this only reduces the amount of wood needed by ~37 kg. But even the lowest reasonable estimates of the amount of total wood needed per corpse for outdoor cremation is closer to ~300kg, with the most applicable estimates (e.g. insights from outdoor funerals in India, or the recent pig study published by Rudolf) suggesting much higher, likely closer to ~700kg per corpse. This means that the reduction of ~37kg of wood needed amounts to only some 5-10% of the total wood being reduced at most. You've barely dented the amount of wood you need, even if adding a whopping 10 liters of gasoline to the fire for every single corpse therein.

Do you understand that such an operation of 10 liters per corpse would require careful, deliberate facilitation? What tool was used to do this? Was it a firehose? Who manned it? Was it attached to the tanker, or was it a separate storage on-site? What kind of pump was used? Were there safety protocols? Do any witnesses mention anything reflecting this sort of scale? If not, then we must necessarily assume that, even if liquid fuels were used, it was far less than 10 liters per corpse.

So, whatchu got, bombsaway? Does your theory hold?

Callafangers wrote: ↑Tue Oct 14, 2025 12:53 am

bombsaway wrote: ↑Tue Oct 14, 2025 12:44 am That liquid fuel was used is noted consistently in the witness record. There's direct evidence for it. I admit that there's no direct evidence that liquid fuel was the main fuel source, that's just my speculation given the low amount of wood ash found in the graves.

bombsaway, you're not understanding something: even if we assume some 10 liters of gasoline per corpse, this only reduces the amount of wood needed by ~37 kg. But even the lowest reasonable estimates of the amount of total wood needed per corpse for outdoor cremation is closer to ~300kg, with the most applicable estimates (e.g. insights from outdoor funerals in India, or the recent pig study published by Rudolf) suggesting much higher, likely closer to ~700kg per corpse. This means that the reduction of ~37kg of wood needed amounts to only some 5-10% of the total wood being reduced. You've barely dented the amount of wood you need, even if adding a whopping 10 liters of gasoline to the fire for every single corpse therein.

Do you understand that such an operation of 10 liters per corpse would require careful, deliberate facilitation? What tool was used to do this? Was it a firehose? Who manned it? Was it attached to the tanker, or was it a separate storage on-site? What kind of pump was used? Were there safety protocols? Do any witnesses mention anything reflecting this sort of scale? If not, then we must necessarily assume that, even if liquid fuels were used, it was far less than 10 liters per corpse.

So, whatchu got, bombsaway? Does your theory hold?

How much fuel do you think was used to cremate the ten thousand or so victims of Dresden bombing? THat was a pure liquid fuel job

bombsaway wrote: ↑Tue Oct 14, 2025 1:12 am

So, whatchu got, bombsaway? Does your theory hold?

How much fuel do you think was used to cremate the ten thousand or so victims of Dresden bombing? THat was a pure liquid fuel job

bombsaway, this is a stupid question and you know it, meant as a red herring. Try again.

Callafangers wrote: ↑Tue Oct 14, 2025 1:14 am

bombsaway wrote: ↑Tue Oct 14, 2025 1:12 am

So, whatchu got, bombsaway? Does your theory hold?

How much fuel do you think was used to cremate the ten thousand or so victims of Dresden bombing? THat was a pure liquid fuel job

bombsaway, this is a stupid question and you know it, meant as a red herring. Try again.

Why, did it happen? Are there records of fuel requisition for it? Based on these facts you should be a Dresden cremation denier

bombsaway wrote: ↑Tue Oct 14, 2025 1:16 am Why, did it happen? Are there records of fuel requisition for it? Based on these facts you should be a Dresden cremation denier

This is how far you have fallen, eh, bombsaway? Red herrings left and right, won't even attempt to defend your theory? You're saying it was liquid fuel at AR camps, I'm just asking to see what evidence you base this upon.

Nothing at all, then?