The CODOH Revisionist Forum

Archie wrote: ↑Tue Nov 19, 2024 1:10 am
Here's a delivery of just 10 cords of wood. The lowest scenario would be ten of these deliveries, every day for months, for one camp. And the high scenario would be over a hundred of these deliveries.


I guess my point is that even if we pretend like their fantasy land assumptions are realistic it still doesn't really work.

how many cords of wood could be delivered on a single long train

Let me think about this step by step:

First, let's consider a standard railcar used for lumber transport:


A typical centerbeam railcar is around 73 feet long
Usable height is approximately 15-16 feet
Width for loading is roughly 10 feet


A cord of wood is a standard measure:


4 feet high
4 feet deep
8 feet long
Total volume = 128 cubic feet


Calculating capacity for one railcar:


Could stack about 3-4 cords high (accounting for safety/stability)
Could fit about 9 cords lengthwise
Total per car ≈ 27-36 cords depending on stacking method


A typical freight train can have:


100-120 cars is common for modern freight trains
Some trains can be longer, up to 150+ cars


Final calculation:


Using conservative estimate of 27 cords per car
With 100 cars = 2,700 cords
With 120 cars = 3,240 cords

So a single long freight train could realistically transport between 2,700-3,240 cords of wood, assuming standard loading practices and typical train length. This could vary based on:

Specific railcar types used
Local railway regulations on train length
Stacking efficiency and safety requirements
Wood piece sizes and stacking patterns

Would you like me to elaborate on any of these factors?


3000 cords comes to 4,800,000 kg so a delivery of these every week or so based on Mattogno's estimates. And dousing wood in liquid fuel cuts down on the amount necessary as well.

bombsaway wrote: ↑Tue Nov 19, 2024 1:19 am I didn't halve his estimate actually I used it. 175 kg of dry wood per body, assuming 50kg per body which I think is generous also. If you want to double everything it doesn't make much of a difference, even quadruple, it's still likely a small fraction of Nazi Germany's total production, which they could easily up with low cost slave labor, and they don't care much about deforesting areas. Your argument, because of your lack of direct evidence, hinges on the mainstream story being impossible - all that needs to be demonstrated here is that there is no strong certainty about whether it is.

The whole cremation business is uncertain. The exact methods, the fuel ratios. According to the mainstream story, Blobel and others were doing corpse experiments for many weeks before deciding on the best method, so they had time to increase efficiency. For you to demonstrate that the story is impossible you would probably have to run experiments using all sorts of different materials and methods (and emaciated human bodies), then take the lowest number and demonstrate that the fuel needed couldn't have arrived. I think it's a near impossible task, but keep on trucking I guess.

bombsaway, why are you avoiding the words "fresh wood" or "green wood". Repeat after me:

G-R-E-E-N

F-R-E-S-H

Mattogno mentions dry wood since most of the data/calculations on open-air cremation use dry wood. But this is not what was available at AR camps, nor what is described by witnesses (who describe the lumberjack units going out to retrieve the wood, never mentioning massive deliveries of wood/fuel).

You can call it "uncertain" but this is not true, and it's a cop-out. There is nothing uncertain about not just a lack of evidence but completely impossible and inconsistent claims, across-the-board.

• If it was lumberjacks, it's impossible.
• If it wasn't lumberjacks, it's completely without evidence.

Those are the two possibilities for cremation fuel. Which do you choose?

Callafangers wrote: ↑Tue Nov 19, 2024 1:38 am

bombsaway wrote: ↑Tue Nov 19, 2024 1:19 am I didn't halve his estimate actually I used it. 175 kg of dry wood per body, assuming 50kg per body which I think is generous also. If you want to double everything it doesn't make much of a difference, even quadruple, it's still likely a small fraction of Nazi Germany's total production, which they could easily up with low cost slave labor, and they don't care much about deforesting areas. Your argument, because of your lack of direct evidence, hinges on the mainstream story being impossible - all that needs to be demonstrated here is that there is no strong certainty about whether it is.

The whole cremation business is uncertain. The exact methods, the fuel ratios. According to the mainstream story, Blobel and others were doing corpse experiments for many weeks before deciding on the best method, so they had time to increase efficiency. For you to demonstrate that the story is impossible you would probably have to run experiments using all sorts of different materials and methods (and emaciated human bodies), then take the lowest number and demonstrate that the fuel needed couldn't have arrived. I think it's a near impossible task, but keep on trucking I guess.

bombsaway, why are you avoiding the words "fresh wood" or "green wood". Repeat after me:

G-R-E-E-N

F-R-E-S-H

Mattogno mentions dry wood since most of the data/calculations on open-air cremation use dry wood. But this is not what was available at AR camps, nor what is described by witnesses (who describe the lumberjack units going out to retrieve the wood, never mentioning massive deliveries of wood/fuel).

You can call it "uncertain" but this is not true, and it's a cop-out. There is nothing uncertain about not just a lack of evidence but completely impossible and inconsistent claims, across-the-board.

• If it was lumberjacks, it's impossible.
• If it wasn't lumberjacks, it's completely without evidence.

Those are the two possibilities for cremation fuel. Which do you choose?

If you had a witness saying, all the wood for the pyres was carried in by lumberjacks freshly cut and no liquid fuel was used, maybe you would have a point in all of this.

Otherwise the score is (0% of your narrative is directly evidenced, and in contrast, most of the mainstream narrative is directly evidenced) In history 100% of the aspects of a given narrative do not have to be evidenced, just some.

bombsaway wrote: ↑Tue Nov 19, 2024 1:43 am If you had a witness saying, all the wood for the pyres was carried in by lumberjacks freshly cut and no liquid fuel was used, maybe you would have a point in all of this.

Otherwise the score is (0% of your narrative is directly evidenced, and in contrast, most of the mainstream narrative is directly evidenced) In history 100% of the aspects of a given narrative do not have to be evidenced, just some.

I also don't have a witness saying dynamite or electric-incineration wasn't used, bombsaway. Does that mean it was?

Your logic has completely fallen apart here. Thanks for playing.

Callafangers wrote: ↑Tue Nov 19, 2024 1:45 am

bombsaway wrote: ↑Tue Nov 19, 2024 1:43 am If you had a witness saying, all the wood for the pyres was carried in by lumberjacks freshly cut and no liquid fuel was used, maybe you would have a point in all of this.

Otherwise the score is (0% of your narrative is directly evidenced, and in contrast, most of the mainstream narrative is directly evidenced) In history 100% of the aspects of a given narrative do not have to be evidenced, just some.

I also don't have a witness saying dynamite or electric-incineration wasn't used, bombsaway. Does that mean it was?

Your logic has completely fallen apart here. Thanks for playing.

what you said is pretty nonsensical actually, so better an AI handle this

Let me analyze the logical exchange carefully:

1. The core debate appears to be about wood requirements for cremations, with bombsaway arguing that the historical narrative could be feasible, while Callafangers is arguing it's impossible.

2. bombsaway's argument essentially states that without explicit witness testimony ruling out other fuel sources or methods, the cremations could have been possible through various means (delivered wood, liquid fuel supplements, etc.).

3. Callafangers' response uses reductio ad absurdum: "I also don't have a witness saying dynamite or electric-incineration wasn't used, bombsaway. Does that mean it was?"

Callafangers' point isn't particularly strong logically because:

1. It mischaracterizes bombsaway's argument. bombsaway isn't saying "anything not explicitly denied by witnesses must have happened" - rather, they're arguing that the absence of explicit witness testimony about fuel sources doesn't rule out practical possibilities like wood deliveries or fuel supplementation.

2. The comparison to dynamite/electric incineration isn't equivalent, as those would be far more extraordinary claims requiring specific evidence, whereas wood delivery by rail and fuel supplementation would be ordinary logistical solutions available at the time.

3. bombsaway's actual argument appears to be that historical events don't require every detail to be documented, only that the broad narrative be supported by available evidence.

So while Callafangers' response might seem clever rhetorically, it doesn't actually address bombsaway's core argument about the feasibility of various practical fuel sources, and relies on a false equivalence between ordinary and extraordinary claims.

I like how Mr. "Direct Evidence!" just makes blatant unprincipled exceptions whenever it suits him.

Are there any testimonies saying that entire trains full of wood were making deliveries to Belzec and Treblinka every day? Any testimonies talking about how they spent all day unloading all that wood? You would need machinery to move it. Any air photos? Documents? Anything?

If the wood was cut locally around the camp (which is the traditional story) then it would be green. Period. Green wood is much heavier due to higher moisture. It doesn't burn as hot and smokes more. For it to be seasoned, you would need to gather it months in advance and store it somewhere (never happened) or you'd have to dry it in a kiln which would be absurd and expensive for these quantities.

I do not think your suggestion about gasoline helps you very much. With an open fire, you can use liquid fuel to help get it started but it doesn't provide a good sustained burn. Try it next time you go camping (as if, ha). It burns off very quickly. I'm sure you could design a high tech solution that could use liquid fuel efficiently but with an open fire I don't think it would work well based on my experience with outdoor cooking.

Bombaway, you should try to order a thousand cords of wood for delivery. See what they say.

Archie wrote: ↑Tue Nov 19, 2024 2:10 am I like how Mr. "Direct Evidence!" just makes blatant unprincipled exceptions whenever it suits him.

Are there any testimonies saying that entire trains full of wood were making deliveries to Belzec and Treblinka every day? Any testimonies talking about how they spent all day unloading all that wood? You would need machinery to move it. Any air photos? Documents? Anything?

Let me explain to you what I mean.

If there was evidence of resettlement camps for Polish Jews in the USSR, these could be accepted by historians even if there were no record or witness testimony construction material being brought in, of food deliveries etc. If there was say evidence of Jews being transported to these camps, and then some corresponding witness testimony, that would be enough.

The issue with resettlement camps is not that there are some gaps in the story, it's that there's no direct evidence for any of it.

These are my principles.

To be fair, there’s that one document referring to one of the Reinhard camp as a “Durchfuhrungslager.” That should overrule all the eyewitness evidence, bodies in the ground, and millions of missing Jews, nu?

Numar Patru wrote: ↑Tue Nov 19, 2024 2:40 am To be fair, there’s that one document referring to one of the Reinhard camp as a “Durchfuhrungslager.” That should overrule all the eyewitness evidence, bodies in the ground, and millions of missing Jews, nu?

That's Himmler right?

There's also the Korherr report, which speaks of the transport of 1.5 million Jews into the Russian East.

But Himmler also calls that document "great camouflage" and the original wording was 1.5 million Jews given special treatment, and a lot of revisionists are skeptical about it.

I think these are the only two mentions, in the entire witness and documentary record that support the mass resettlement in German controlled USSR position. So there's not a great deal of evidence (I shouldn't say 0%) and the evidence that is there is questionable based on other documents (mention of camouflage). It's not a strong case, mass events have not been asserted in history on the basis of such evidence.

bombsaway wrote: ↑Tue Nov 19, 2024 2:05 am

Callafangers wrote: ↑Tue Nov 19, 2024 1:45 am

bombsaway wrote: ↑Tue Nov 19, 2024 1:43 am If you had a witness saying, all the wood for the pyres was carried in by lumberjacks freshly cut and no liquid fuel was used, maybe you would have a point in all of this.

Otherwise the score is (0% of your narrative is directly evidenced, and in contrast, most of the mainstream narrative is directly evidenced) In history 100% of the aspects of a given narrative do not have to be evidenced, just some.

I also don't have a witness saying dynamite or electric-incineration wasn't used, bombsaway. Does that mean it was?

Your logic has completely fallen apart here. Thanks for playing.

what you said is pretty nonsensical actually, so better an AI handle this

Let me analyze the logical exchange carefully:

1. The core debate appears to be about wood requirements for cremations, with bombsaway arguing that the historical narrative could be feasible, while Callafangers is arguing it's impossible.

2. bombsaway's argument essentially states that without explicit witness testimony ruling out other fuel sources or methods, the cremations could have been possible through various means (delivered wood, liquid fuel supplements, etc.).

3. Callafangers' response uses reductio ad absurdum: "I also don't have a witness saying dynamite or electric-incineration wasn't used, bombsaway. Does that mean it was?"

Callafangers' point isn't particularly strong logically because:

1. It mischaracterizes bombsaway's argument. bombsaway isn't saying "anything not explicitly denied by witnesses must have happened" - rather, they're arguing that the absence of explicit witness testimony about fuel sources doesn't rule out practical possibilities like wood deliveries or fuel supplementation.

2. The comparison to dynamite/electric incineration isn't equivalent, as those would be far more extraordinary claims requiring specific evidence, whereas wood delivery by rail and fuel supplementation would be ordinary logistical solutions available at the time.

3. bombsaway's actual argument appears to be that historical events don't require every detail to be documented, only that the broad narrative be supported by available evidence.

So while Callafangers' response might seem clever rhetorically, it doesn't actually address bombsaway's core argument about the feasibility of various practical fuel sources, and relies on a false equivalence between ordinary and extraordinary claims.

bombsaway, our debate is not about whether your hypothesis is strictly impossible (as in, somehow and some way trucks could drive to AR camps) and I am guessing you misrepresented it to the AI to get your desired response. Our debate is about what actually happened.

There is no evidence of even ten massive shipments of firewood or gasoline to any of the AR camps. Yet, you require some tens of thousands for your exterminationist beliefs to be true. And documentation aside, there would at least be witness statements about such significant happenings in these camps (given the level of detail on every other alleged matter)... but these statements do not exist.

My mention of dynamite/etc. was obviously intended not only as hyperbole but to specifically to illustrate that I do not need a witness saying things like, "no liquid fuel was brought in by the truckload" or, "massive wood shipments did not arrive every hour". It is sufficient to point out that nobody claims these events happened and no documents do, either. This is obvious.

But by all means, continue gaslighting/manipulating ChatGPT until it gives you another desirable output.

Callafangers wrote: ↑Tue Nov 19, 2024 4:52 am

There is no evidence of even ten massive shipments of firewood or gasoline to any of the AR camps. Yet, you require some tens of thousands for your exterminationist beliefs to be true. And documentation aside, there would at least be witness statements about such significant happenings in these camps (given the level of detail on every other alleged matter)... but these statements do not exist.

Listen I hear your concern, but as I see it the problem is many orders of magnitude greater for you. Even if we say only 500,000 Jews were transported into the USSR that's going to leave much more evidence than shipments of wood to camps.

It's not hard to find a reason why there is little evidence about this (quick search reveals there is at Auschwitz and Chelmbo) which is that at a death camp lumber supply is going to take a backseat to extermination activities.

Basically if lack of evidence is a reason to disbelieve the mainstream narrative this problem emerges a thousand fold for your narrative. From this perspective the correct choice is clear ...

bombsaway wrote: ↑Tue Nov 19, 2024 5:51 am

Callafangers wrote: ↑Tue Nov 19, 2024 4:52 am
There is no evidence of even ten massive shipments of firewood or gasoline to any of the AR camps. Yet, you require some tens of thousands for your exterminationist beliefs to be true. And documentation aside, there would at least be witness statements about such significant happenings in these camps (given the level of detail on every other alleged matter)... but these statements do not exist.

Listen I hear your concern, but as I see it the problem is many orders of magnitude greater for you. Even if we say only 500,000 Jews were transported into the USSR that's going to leave much more evidence than shipments of wood to camps.

It's not hard to find a reason why there is little evidence about this (quick search reveals there is at Auschwitz and Chelmbo) which is that at a death camp lumber supply is going to take a backseat to extermination activities.

Basically if lack of evidence is a reason to disbelieve the mainstream narrative this problem emerges a thousand fold for your narrative. From this perspective the correct choice is clear ...

I appreciate what is probably above the closest thing I'll ever see to a concession from you, bombsaway.

Yes, I am glad you hear my concern, although it seems you do not fully grasp it. It isn't just "shipments of wood to camps". It's that the witnesses and the documents tell exactly one story... one about lumberjacks... which we know for certain is false. A complete narrative of Jews arriving at the platforms, lining up for 'gassing', being 'gassed', cremating the bodies in specific ways, working at the camps (sorting property, etc.), with specific timelines, etc., has all been constructed per the exterminationist narrative... yet nobody -- not one of them -- so much as mentions any gigantic shipments/arrivals of wood, fuel, etc. They don't mention transporting it, seeing it, receiving it, unloading it; they don't mention how it was transferred from the railway platform to the camp itself (a huge undertaking for such massive wood quantities). They don't mention the liquid fuel you believe in being constantly firehose'd onto the pyres. They don't say who drove the trucks, and they don't interrogate them post-war. Etc. But these events would be necessarily happening constantly (with huge shipments ~hourly, if by truck) at all of the AR camps, for the entire time they were in operation.

The revisionist explanation for your 'missing Jews' is a simple one: "we (revisionists) lack the resources to ascertain where these Jews went, whereas the victors of WW2 held the motive and means to make these Jews 'disappear'".

Regardless of how incredulous you are to this revisionist explanation, it is a valid hypothesis, at the very least (leaning more into a well-established theory and near-certain account of what actually happened, once you look at the many converging factors).

What is much less believable is that none of these witnesses telling elaborate stories about the AR camps (in addition to hundreds of obvious lies, inconsistencies, etc.) managed to notice the massive fuel shipments rolling in, hour by hour, minute by minute, keeping these extraordinary pyres burning hot.

Given the fact that they instead told impossible stories about 'lumberjacking teams', one has to wonder if maybe -- just maybe -- this is yet another of the famous lies the 'Holocaust' is so famous for. Put it in the bin with 'I survived six gassings', 'Mengele sewed the twins together', 'brain bashing machines', etc.

Callafangers wrote: ↑Tue Nov 19, 2024 6:29 am

The revisionist explanation for your 'missing Jews' is a simple one: "we (revisionists) lack the resources to ascertain where these Jews went, whereas the victors of WW2 held the motive and means to make these Jews 'disappear'".

The thing is things cannot be assumed by "motive and means". I've pointed out in the other thread, that in addition to the lack of evidence for resettlement, there are basic flaws with the "motive and means" rationale, that again I would say far outstrip the problems with the mainstream narrative. Ie I don't think the Soviet Union had the means to silence potentially hundreds of thousands of witnesses to resettlement, they didn't have the means to keep "perpetrators" quiet about being coerced (ie the case of the sole German witness to the alleged Nazi Katyn Massacre). They did not have motive or means to coordinate with the Allies who also had to do all of these things, albeit to a lesser extent. They did not have the motive because of the intense difficulty of suppressing so many witnesses, permanently coercing so many perpetuators, suppressing all the documentary evidence of resettlement, even confiscating diaries or letters that would have spoken of it.

If you want to pin the conspiracy on World Jewry, you hit the same problems.

The Jews have to have influence governments of many different nations (one of which turned pretty anti semitic by the late 40s). The motive isn't there because if the such a conspiracy became exposed, which is likely due to the size, this would make things rough for Jews. Assuming no Holocaust, they could without doubt still bank off of being the most persecuted group by Nazi Germany.

bombsaway wrote: ↑Tue Nov 19, 2024 5:51 am

Callafangers wrote: ↑Tue Nov 19, 2024 4:52 am

There is no evidence of even ten massive shipments of firewood or gasoline to any of the AR camps. Yet, you require some tens of thousands for your exterminationist beliefs to be true. And documentation aside, there would at least be witness statements about such significant happenings in these camps (given the level of detail on every other alleged matter)... but these statements do not exist.

Listen I hear your concern, but as I see it the problem is many orders of magnitude greater for you. Even if we say only 500,000 Jews were transported into the USSR that's going to leave much more evidence than shipments of wood to camps.
...

You don't tell others to listen here.

What you trying to do is essentially flip-flopping from the problem for exterminationism in terms of missing evidence for extermination or in this case dead Jews. The real question is Where are the Corpses, if they were gassed. Instead you are peddling Jews not reporting after WW2 to be somehow a proof of extermination. Which it isn't even indirectly.

The whole affair demonstrates that one needs to comply with quite some twisted logic to believe in the Holocaust Narrative. That's a service we van even be grateful for.

bombsaway wrote: ↑Tue Nov 19, 2024 7:26 am The thing is things cannot be assumed by "motive and means". I've pointed out in the other thread, that in addition to the lack of evidence for resettlement, there are basic flaws with the "motive and means" rationale, that again I would say far outstrip the problems with the mainstream narrative. Ie I don't think the Soviet Union had the means to silence potentially hundreds of thousands of witnesses to resettlement, they didn't have the means to keep "perpetrators" quiet about being coerced (ie the case of the sole German witness to the alleged Nazi Katyn Massacre). They did not have motive or means to coordinate with the Allies who also had to do all of these things, albeit to a lesser extent. They did not have the motive because of the intense difficulty of suppressing so many witnesses, permanently coercing so many perpetuators, suppressing all the documentary evidence of resettlement, even confiscating diaries or letters that would have spoken of it.

When you win the world war, nobody holds you accountable, nobody asks you questions, particularly in totalitarian nations like the Soviet Union. Given the frequency and scale of show trials, manipulative and subversive schemes, etc., the notion that Stalin could work with other world superpowers to quietly coordinate shipments of Jews to just about anywhere (Jews ended up in some 60+ countries) and keep his subjects in the dark about it is not so farfetched. Would this be a unique event in history? To an extent, yes, but the conditions of that period are nearly as unique and the instability left room for things like moving populations to go unnoticed. Stalin's deportations to Siberia were often done in secrecy, with railcars designed to look like they were carrying anything but passengers. While most of these gulag deportations were documented, these are the documents that ultimately survived and there are many reasons why others might not have been preserved in the same way. That these reasons are not currently understood or confirmed does not invalidate the possibility (if seen in a vacuum) or probability (if taking a more holistic view). The bottom-line remains the same: "where did they go?" is as much on exterminationists as it is upon revisionists, but unfortunately for the former: we checked underground, where you said they'd be, and they're not there. You also said they were cremated through the labor of a gang of some 40 lumberjacks, and we found out that's completely ridiculous. So, overall, yes, I do think the Allies, Jewish/Zionist networks, etc., found some way to make Jews 'disappear', to seal in perpetuity their claims that Nazis=Bad, Jews=Victims, Allies=Heroic, and whatever other deals were cut behind the scenes. There were plenty of spoils to go around.

bombsaway wrote: If you want to pin the conspiracy on World Jewry, you hit the same problems.

The Jews have to have influence governments of many different nations (one of which turned pretty anti semitic by the late 40s). The motive isn't there because if the such a conspiracy became exposed, which is likely due to the size, this would make things rough for Jews. Assuming no Holocaust, they could without doubt still bank off of being the most persecuted group by Nazi Germany.

Jews have had widespread, global influence on and off for millenia but particularly since the 1700s and the Rothschild dynasty (and international banking). Most Jews of Eastern Europe were still of the "particularist" mindset until their successes in subverting Russian society made "universalist" thought (and global subversion) seem an achievable aim. This held them over for awhile and their power dramatically grew as they acquired major newspapers, publishing houses, and other key positions in European nations throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries. Even throughout WW2 their power via Hollywood grew dramatically, as did their control over various media companies, which have evolved into massive media conglomerates (some owning hundreds of additional subsidiaries), still with the same Jewish control at the executive level.

Without the 'Holocaust', nobody would be putting up with their shit. That was already obvious in the years immediately post-war, with 'antisemitism' (i.e. common-sense and national self-defense) still appearing throughout Europe.

It is quite difficult to give the full picture in regard to the above without discussion of other Jewish criminal activity, especially post-WW2. It opens up some major topics (e.g. JFK, 9/11) which are simply too huge for discussion on a Holocaust-focused forum but which strangely have a pattern of Jewish names in overwhelming-disproportion at the absolute center (not to mention the media networks throughout these times).

---

EDIT: Just to acknowledge, this thread has gone off-topic, so let's please redirect back onto the topic/question of wood cremations. My apologies. I am open to a separate thread if anyone wishes to explore further this latest tangent.