The CODOH Revisionist Forum

Archie wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 2:52 pm ....

This idea of yours that they burned 200,000 bodies in October is not the story.

That is not my idea either.

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/ ... cle/belzec

"In October 1942, on orders from Odilo Globocnik, camp personnel deployed Jewish forced laborers from various locations in Lublin District to exhume the mass graves at Belzec. They ordered the forced laborers to burn the bodies on open-air “ovens” made from rail track. This was in keeping with the efforts of the Sonderkommando 1005, tasked with excavating and destroying evidence of Nazi mass murder in the German-occupied east."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belzec_extermination_camp

"In October 1942, the exhumation and burning of all corpses was ordered to cover up the crime on direct orders from SS-Obergruppenführer Odilo Globocnik, the deputy of Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler in Berlin. The bodies were placed on pyres made from rail tracks, splashed with petrol and burned over wood."

https://www.holocausthistoricalsociety. ... elzec.html

"The final resettlement transports to Belzec arrived on the 11 December 1942 and this accelerated the work of corpse burning, which had begun in November 1942."

The histories do not agree on the month the cremations started. There were the following arrivals after cremations started;

"October 105,764
November 89,070
December 13,250"

Also, it would take quite a while to burn 200,000 so what did they do with those bodies in the meantime? They would either be buried or they would be in a heap.

Or taken straight from the gas chambers and put onto pyres. Why do you assume the Nazis could not cremate exhumed and newly dead corpses at the same time? They could have also cremated the newly dead and then started the exhumations. It is one of those unknowns. What that means is it is not possible to do a precise calculation as to how many were buried at Belzec, which means revisionists claims and calculations are back of the envelope, guestimations, which are not a reasonable cause to claim the pyres never happened.

Callafangers wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 7:59 am
The people in Provan's photo are clearly lean which is akin to the term "healthy" and, many would consider (especially outside the US and other obese nations), "normal". It was predictable that you would argue in this way ("splitting hairs", per usual), which is why I provided a table which estimates the weight of each participant and included a photograph example of a man at the exact dimensions I suggested. That man is lean, bombsaway, and his shape looks nearly identical to the man in the photograph.

You're analyzing folds in shirts. It doesn't really matter though, because your table is just unsubstantiated assertions (about the volume). The AI looked at it and without my prompting said it appeared to be "significantly incorrect". You're acting like whatever you're saying is obvious but it clearly isn't.

As for Bale, in that movie he's significantly underweight already, probably close to 0 body fat. This is not the adults or children in Provan's study, so I see no reason to spend time looking into this.