Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Holocaust denial and related subjects.
User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 21978
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Mon Jul 09, 2018 4:16 pm

blake121666 wrote: There are sustained periods of overly large numbers to be cremated in the lists. Such was all that was ever meant and such is what is being claimed by you.

You still can't say whether you accept the timetables worked out by Hans/Sergey. Amazing.

"Sustained periods" = 5 out of 50+ at the level (11,000) you claimed. Frankly, you're still slithering. Simple: do you now accept the timetables Hans and Sergey presented which have 5 days maximum at the level you have been insisting upon?
"It was still at the stage of clubs and fists, hurrah, tala"

blake121666
Poster
Posts: 116
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2017 3:51 pm

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby blake121666 » Mon Jul 09, 2018 4:17 pm

Balsamo wrote:
Aaron Richards wrote:blake, you're still assuming historians are claiming everyone, or even the overwhelming majority of people who died in a homicidal gas chamber at Auschwitz-Birkenau, died from a fatal dose of hydrogen cyanide inhalation, when the reality is we simply do not know who died from what causes inside the chambers. It is obvious that a mass of some 1500 writhing, panicking, hyperventilating people clawing at and crushing each other will have ALSO expired from a wide variety of causes other than the aforementioned. This is why "revisionist science", with its reference to calmly seated US prisoners being executed by HCN is a meaningless comparison. A bloke who might have died only after 17 minutes of gassing in a US chamber might not have lasted two minutes in Krema II, morgue 1.


I agree 100% with this Aaron,
Even a dropped firecracker would have resulted in 100's of deaths...
In addition, more or less time of exposure to the poison gas has absolute no consequences...


No, this is a "just-so" claim. And yours is an exaggeration of no substance. A dropped firecracker would not have resulted in 100s of deaths. :roll:

And there is quite a difference between saying something occurred in 5 minutes and that it occurred in 40 minutes.

blake121666
Poster
Posts: 116
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2017 3:51 pm

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby blake121666 » Mon Jul 09, 2018 4:22 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
blake121666 wrote: There are sustained periods of overly large numbers to be cremated in the lists. Such was all that was ever meant and such is what is being claimed by you.

You still can't say whether you accept the timetables worked out by Hans/Sergey. Amazing.

"Sustained periods" = 5 out of 50+ at the level (11,000) you claimed. Frankly, you're still slithering. Simple: do you now accept the timetables Hans and Sergey presented which have 5 days maximum at the level you have been insisting upon?


Look, this is the last response to your pedantry. Around 3-4,000 per day is the accepted cremation capacity of the ovens. Your list quite exceeds that for sustained time frames - some days being over 11,000.

You wish to twist the argument and say that it is I who is doing that.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 21978
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Mon Jul 09, 2018 4:39 pm

blake121666 wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:
blake121666 wrote: There are sustained periods of overly large numbers to be cremated in the lists. Such was all that was ever meant and such is what is being claimed by you.

You still can't say whether you accept the timetables worked out by Hans/Sergey. Amazing.

"Sustained periods" = 5 out of 50+ at the level (11,000) you claimed. Frankly, you're still slithering. Simple: do you now accept the timetables Hans and Sergey presented which have 5 days maximum at the level you have been insisting upon?


Look, this is the last response to your pedantry. Around 3-4,000 per day is the accepted cremation capacity of the ovens. Your list quite exceeds that for sustained time frames - some days being over 11,000.

You wish to twist the argument and say that it is I who is doing that.

Look you, you asked me to set out with the number of arrivals per day, not with cremation capacity: "just start with the Hungarian transports to Auschwitz. Hans mentioned in the other thread that the rate of influx of Hungarian Jews to Auschwitz was not as typically claimed. Do you know of any online reference to what is believed to be this rate of influx? Does it agree with the Veesenmayer telegrams? What are the bases of any claims you, or anyone else, might have about this rate?" I replied as did Hans and Sergey. Now you change the subject to cremation capacity. I didn't reply to a question about cremation capacity because you asked about transports.

You claim, despite my directly quoting you on 11,000 per day being taken to gas chambers, that you have been clear. Since you won't reply to what I ask, I still don't know what basis you're asking people to proceed from, which I take to be your motive, to obfuscate the arrivals.

But fine, since you won't answer a simple question, at least link to where you've discussed the phases described by Braham and detailed by Hans and Sergey, to show the time issues and the variance in arrival and killing numbers.
"It was still at the stage of clubs and fists, hurrah, tala"

Hans
Poster
Posts: 303
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:25 pm

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby Hans » Mon Jul 09, 2018 4:53 pm

Balsamo wrote:Sergey:
Have you confused the arrival dates with the other dates?


Oups, indeed...i really need new glasses...
But the new results corrected by Hans do not really change the problem.

@Hans: It is not Blake who wrote the post you quoted

Hans wrote:
Another thing to consider is that the numbers of unfit people did not have to be cremated on the very same or the next day, but in principle they could have been hold back and liquidated later on days of lesser activity (there might be not much, if any evidence on this, but this could be so because there would be no survivors of such practice).


Two important things here.
The first is when you write that those people did not have to be cremated on the very same. Again, here is one of the issue: before being cremated those people had to be killed first.
To evaluate their disposal only based on the cremation capacity would suppose that they were already dead, and the bodies directly delivered to the cremation facilities.
My whole point being that the cremation capacities were enough, especially supported by open pits, but that the limits was within the killing process, which seems completely forgotten.
Even if we assumed that 8819 people were killed in the gas chambers on the 22th of May - and i doubt the gas chambers had the capacity for so many people, but again let's assume it was possible - it would have been impossible use those gas chambers the very next morning, and the more people in the gas chambers, the longer it would have taken to empty it, even if only because of the delays between the two process. Especially at Krema II and III.


Sorry I confused you with Blake!

Balsamo, I can't see how you can argue that killing capacity was the problem for the figures, when it was actually well adjusted.

9600 people per day (the average, assumed figure for the most dense period) required about 900 m² of gassing space. Crematorium 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 had 210 + 210 + 240 + 240 = 900 m² of gas chamber area. And then there was also the reactivated Bunker 2. Thus, even without assuming more than one gassing shift per day (and I would not know why one gassing per day should not have been possible), the amount of gassing area was sufficient. In addition, the clearing of crematorium 5 could be done much faster than that of crematorium 2 & 3, where the single door, narrow corridor, the elevator and of course the crematoria ovens were limiting the clearing speed, and a 2nd run might have been possible at this site (and was perhaps necessary if crematorium 4 was not used or the killing figure was above the average of the period).

The crematoria ovens were rate limiting the killing, but it's true that with open air cremations, it was rather the gassing capacity and it stands to reason that the max. number of transports Höß accepted to get poured into Birkenau was limited so that the gas chambers could handle it.

blake121666
Poster
Posts: 116
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2017 3:51 pm

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby blake121666 » Mon Jul 09, 2018 6:33 pm

Sergey_Romanov wrote:> It looks like you require open air cremations practically EVERY day for the first month. Is this your contention?

I think this has always been the default assumption supported by witness evidence.


I was unaware of this. I was under the impression that the open air cremations were only done when the ovens could not handle the cremation load. You seem to be saying that they were done every day for this Hungarian operation. Now I know your claim better.

So let's just sum up and then drop the issue for me to digest what the claims even are:

1. What were the average and maximum cremation rates for the ovens during this Hungarian action?
2. What were the average and maximum cremation rates for the pits during this Hungarian action?
3. Where was the fuel stockpiled for the pit cremations? The fuel was wood, correct?

I honestly never knew how you squared the numbers. Such is all I'd like to get from this discussion for now.

Sergey_Romanov
Regular Poster
Posts: 530
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:15 am

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby Sergey_Romanov » Mon Jul 09, 2018 9:30 pm

blake121666 wrote:
Sergey_Romanov wrote:> It looks like you require open air cremations practically EVERY day for the first month. Is this your contention?

I think this has always been the default assumption supported by witness evidence.


I was unaware of this. I was under the impression that the open air cremations were only done when the ovens could not handle the cremation load. You seem to be saying that they were done every day for this Hungarian operation. Now I know your claim better.

So let's just sum up and then drop the issue for me to digest what the claims even are:

1. What were the average and maximum cremation rates for the ovens during this Hungarian action?
2. What were the average and maximum cremation rates for the pits during this Hungarian action?
3. Where was the fuel stockpiled for the pit cremations? The fuel was wood, correct?

I honestly never knew how you squared the numbers. Such is all I'd like to get from this discussion for now.

It's good that you're learning, but tbh, that's basics. I don't think anyone can tell you the more exact numbers for Q1&2, except maybe very ballpark - what would be the sources?

Here's stockpiled wood near Krema III after the liberation. I don't see why similar situation could not obtain in relation to the pits. https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... 0251.shtml

Sergey_Romanov
Regular Poster
Posts: 530
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:15 am

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby Sergey_Romanov » Mon Jul 09, 2018 9:33 pm

Some wood near Krema V after the liberation. https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... 0424.shtml

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 21978
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Mon Jul 09, 2018 9:37 pm

He comes in here to set everyone straight, writing, "I don't think you on the anti-Revisionist side have a good enough understanding of cremation and consistently reveal your misconceptions about it. While the claims you make about cremation capacity and such are documented, probably were attainable, and probably in fact occurred, your conceptions about what is entailed in those claims are incorrect and physically impossible. Hence you give bad counter-arguments."

Now he's reduced to weaseling about his own claims and confessing "So let's just sum up and then drop the issue for me to digest what the claims even are. . . . I honestly never knew how you squared the numbers. Such is all I'd like to get from this discussion for now."

It turns out he "honestly never knew" what was being claimed on what he charmingly calls "the Anti-Revisionist side."

Such is "revisionism."
Last edited by Statistical Mechanic on Mon Jul 09, 2018 9:42 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"It was still at the stage of clubs and fists, hurrah, tala"

Sergey_Romanov
Regular Poster
Posts: 530
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:15 am

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby Sergey_Romanov » Mon Jul 09, 2018 9:39 pm

Balsamo: > This is also my conclusion actually and the only solution basically. Now i don't enough on the topic to look for proofs, but it seems that there were Depot lager in sector BII, as well as the sector BIII, and that there is this german term "gesondert untergrebracht" which quite fit with the need.
Now i know that HC has concluded that it was just another way to express "to kill", but well, maybe, just maybe...it only mean what it actually says, that is "specially (gesondert having the same meaning than in SB, only while Treatment means death, Untergebracht means lodged until put to death... Just an idea.
---

It's not simply what we "concluded", it's what the documents and the Nazis say. Your hypothesis is thus baseless.

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... hwitz.html

Sergey_Romanov
Regular Poster
Posts: 530
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:15 am

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby Sergey_Romanov » Mon Jul 09, 2018 9:46 pm

PS: not to mention that the hypothesis makes 0 sense due to the document language:

"The special accommodation [Sonderunterbringung] of the men was due to too much frailty, that of women because most were children."

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1752
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby Balsamo » Mon Jul 09, 2018 9:51 pm

Hans wrote:
Balsamo wrote:Sergey:
Have you confused the arrival dates with the other dates?


Oups, indeed...i really need new glasses...
But the new results corrected by Hans do not really change the problem.

@Hans: It is not Blake who wrote the post you quoted

Hans wrote:
Another thing to consider is that the numbers of unfit people did not have to be cremated on the very same or the next day, but in principle they could have been hold back and liquidated later on days of lesser activity (there might be not much, if any evidence on this, but this could be so because there would be no survivors of such practice).


Two important things here.
The first is when you write that those people did not have to be cremated on the very same. Again, here is one of the issue: before being cremated those people had to be killed first.
To evaluate their disposal only based on the cremation capacity would suppose that they were already dead, and the bodies directly delivered to the cremation facilities.
My whole point being that the cremation capacities were enough, especially supported by open pits, but that the limits was within the killing process, which seems completely forgotten.
Even if we assumed that 8819 people were killed in the gas chambers on the 22th of May - and i doubt the gas chambers had the capacity for so many people, but again let's assume it was possible - it would have been impossible use those gas chambers the very next morning, and the more people in the gas chambers, the longer it would have taken to empty it, even if only because of the delays between the two process. Especially at Krema II and III.


Sorry I confused you with Blake!

Balsamo, I can't see how you can argue that killing capacity was the problem for the figures, when it was actually well adjusted.

9600 people per day (the average, assumed figure for the most dense period) required about 900 m² of gassing space. Crematorium 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 had 210 + 210 + 240 + 240 = 900 m² of gas chamber area. And then there was also the reactivated Bunker 2. Thus, even without assuming more than one gassing shift per day (and I would not know why one gassing per day should not have been possible), the amount of gassing area was sufficient. In addition, the clearing of crematorium 5 could be done much faster than that of crematorium 2 & 3, where the single door, narrow corridor, the elevator and of course the crematoria ovens were limiting the clearing speed, and a 2nd run might have been possible at this site (and was perhaps necessary if crematorium 4 was not used or the killing figure was above the average of the period).

The crematoria ovens were rate limiting the killing, but it's true that with open air cremations, it was rather the gassing capacity and it stands to reason that the max. number of transports Höß accepted to get poured into Birkenau was limited so that the gas chambers could handle it.



Hans, keep in mind that i am here to learn. Worse, i have lost my files in which i was keeping most of my data.


You are right pointing out that the clearing of krema 4 and 5 where less challenging that for krema 1 and 2, with one sole exception, that is that the undressing room, if i remember well, was in the way and had to be emptied before any corpses could be dragged from the chambers...

But anyway, i am learning something here as i did not know that the gas chambers of krema IV and V were actually larger than those of krema II and III. I am a bit puzzled because it is commonly said that the gassing capacity of 4 and 5 were actually smaller than the one of krema 2 and 3.

But essentially, i feel that your calculation of 9600 with 900 m2 each 24 hours is too theoretical.

I have focused more on krema 2 and 3, so i will stick with it.
The first problem i have with such data is the variety of the testimonies: Pressac goes with gas chambers capacity of 2000 for 2 and 3, and 1000 each for 4 and 5... in Van Pelt, this capacity is increased to 2500 and 1500 respectively...Venezia speak of 1800 for Krema 3, Cohen and others speak of "up to 2000", and yes some said up to 2500... (all for krema 3 as they worked there).

But my focus here is not, i repeat focused, on theoretical capacity, but on practical one.

I think that the main problem we all face is our - and it is bloody understandable - incapacity to fully picture the full process. We are kind of helped by Olere drawings, but their are a bit misleading in a sense that they seems quite auto-censured, or some reconstitution through movies which never actually represent the number at stake.

You assumption is that the density within each gas chambers was 10.6 people a square meters, and that corresponds more o less to the highest estimates of 2500 i krema 2 and 3, more or less.
Now on a pure theoretical level, why not...well i have said what i thought about Provan...but then, let's put this aside.
On a practical level, such a density would contradict all the testimonies speaking about the deceving tactics used to make those people enter the gas chamber without fuss...like "please take a shower and you'll be given food", "please undress with calm, everything is going to be ok, please follow the instructions", etc. Considering that in "real life" at least since 1944, there has never been a concrete example of such a concentration: even the Japanese or Chinese subways at rush hours never exceed a density of 7/m2 while employees have to push a crowed WILLING to enter the train.

Of course, a number of 10.6/m2 can theoretically defended, but the question then would be "would it be worth it?"...I mean the time lost by trying to get so much people in such a space, added to the time lost because of the additional difficulty to extract this compressed huge mass of bodies.

Now, even if we do accept this number, to get rid of all those corpses within 24 hours, knowing that the SK worked for 12 hours with 2 "lunch break", and had to be replaced after a roll call...we would have to assume that those guys below were able to provide a body - that is from the gas chambers to the ovens, every 31 second or so...and never less on a regular basis during the whole working shifts.

This is why i do not really care if 2500 people could be cremated in the ovens of Krema III within 24 hours, which would means 6.9 bodies/hour per muffle, i am really skeptic about the fact that the team downstairs could organize a chain that would guarantee the delivery of 113 bodies at the ovens level, without a single delay during 24h...

And here too, the testimonies tends to make it impossible: again sorry, i have lost my detailed witnesses testimonies, so i speak from memory: regarding the dragging out of the corpses, there are testimonies that at first it was really difficult because the bodies were slippery, so one of the tactics - even though Olere only drew walking sticks - was to use belts...then when rigidity started to appear, big forks were used... (painful to picture once again)... but the more the chamber was being empty, the longer the distance to cover to bring the bodies to the haircutters, but then, more people could help of course, which then means that more bodies were brought to the haircutters, then to the dentists, then to be loaded on the elevator - here too testimonies differs widely, some say 7-8 per load, other up to 18 per loads, of course the elevator had to be sent upstairs, that would take some precious seconds (there are only 3600 of them in an hour), unloaded, then put on the trailers and then in the ovens, that is in each individual muffle...

And ALL THOSE STEPS HAD TO BE DONE WITHIN 30 seconds without a single delay?
And even admitting that such a performance could be achieved, in the present case, it would have had to be achieved 20 days in a row...

Then of course, the whole process left a huge mess, so the installation had to be put back in shape...that is the ground and walls washed from all the vomit and excrement, and blood; some says the fake plumbing had to be repaired, some even add that the walls had to be repainted, etc...before being used again.

So again, you seems to just ignore the only SK who actually put an estimate on his job...and Venezia was one of those Greeks who was "hired" precisely to deal with the Hungarian Jews. And whether we agree with it or not, he spoke about 6 shifts per convoy...now even if we do not agree with this, then it should explained how the same job could be done within two shifts which is the only way for the killing process to match the cremation rate.
And there is just no way to demonstrate that, as mathematically no "pushers" (those working the ovens) would have been able to see the end of the process within his shift given that in the best case scenario there was a delay of at least 2 hours between the first people entering the undressing room and the start of the first cremation...2h being more likely to be 3h or 3h30...

So yes, i continue to consider that the current way to apprehend this issue is way too much based on purely theoretical consideration only in order to "make ends meet" if you know what i mean.

Which leaves us with the second point you mentioned...that is to spare some of those doomed until further availability...

But 9600 people killed and processed per 24h can only be proven through pure theoretical demonstrations...and even then...it don't think it would support scrutiny.

While the second point, which would have allowed the Nazis to organize their killing enterprise the best, which is as said, to maximize the killing process while momentarily spare some victims until further availablity, basically solves all the issues i have pointed out.

In my estimation, a reasonable use of the killing facilities...considering that it is faster for an installation like Krema 3 to dispose of 1800 bodies within less than 36 hours, than actually dealing with convoy of 2500... my calculation reaches a usual killing rate of about 23.000 a week (including Bunker II), with some room to optimize... So 23.000 week can be considered as a minimum so to speak...that is already monstrous enough...and would have been way enough to deal with the Hungarian Jews if we free ourselves from the 9 weeks burden.

I also agree that the pits were able to solve any cremation rate issues that could have arisen from this peak.

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1752
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby Balsamo » Mon Jul 09, 2018 10:31 pm

Sergey_Romanov wrote:Balsamo: > This is also my conclusion actually and the only solution basically. Now i don't enough on the topic to look for proofs, but it seems that there were Depot lager in sector BII, as well as the sector BIII, and that there is this german term "gesondert untergrebracht" which quite fit with the need.
Now i know that HC has concluded that it was just another way to express "to kill", but well, maybe, just maybe...it only mean what it actually says, that is "specially (gesondert having the same meaning than in SB, only while Treatment means death, Untergebracht means lodged until put to death... Just an idea.
---

It's not simply what we "concluded", it's what the documents and the Nazis say. Your hypothesis is thus baseless.

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... hwitz.html



Yes i have read this article, but then i do not pretend that "gesondert untergebracht" means "nicely settle in proper accomadation" as would a denier.
In my hypothesis, it means "delayed killing". So Perry Broad would not be wrong is saying that it meant "killing" ...well at some point...
This is why the term "gesondert is used" so that there would be no confusion...
I am not dismissing the witnesses here, but where there in the position to really check?
Granted those designated under those terms had to be considered as dead...but just like an execution squad, the squad would only kill X at the time, those who had been condemned to the same fate, would be kept alive until their turn come.

In the HC article you give some example, the first being:

Subject: Transfer of 5022 Jews from Theresienstadt
Reference: Your telex from 17.2.43 no. 1023
Overall number of arrivals on 21.1.43 2,000 Jews, from them selected for labor deployment 418 = 254 men and 164 women = 20.9%. On 24.1.43 2029 Jews, of them for labor deployment 228 = 148 men and 80 women = 11.2%. On 27.1.43 993 Jews, of them for labor deployment 284 = 212 men and 72 women = 22.5%. Separately accommodated [gesondert untergebracht] on 21.1.43 1582 = 602 men and 980 women and children, on 24.1,43 1801 = 623 men and 1178 women and children, on 27.1.43 709 = 197 men and 512 women and children. The special accommodation [Sonderunterbringung] of the men was due to too much frailty, that of women because most were children.


Sorry, but it can be understood at those women and children and frail men would be killed...between the next day and a week...not just upon arrival...that is something as "as soon as possible".

Concentration camp Auschwitz reports Jew-transport from Berlin. Arrival on 13.3.43. Total strength 964 Jews. For labor deployment came 218 men and 147 women. The men were transferred to Buna. Separately accommodated were 126 men and 473 women and children


I am not sure about the translation which says "separately"... But again, it could just mean that those selected will be killed at the first occasion, as soon as possible.

I am not saying that the term G.U has not a fatal meaning, just a different one than "special treatment".
So i was wondering if this term could be found in documents of the crucial period we are discussing about. That is it.

Now, after checking Van pelt, he just dismissed the term because something like there is no proof that such accommodation existed...Sorry that is a bit light to me.

blake121666
Poster
Posts: 116
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2017 3:51 pm

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby blake121666 » Mon Jul 09, 2018 11:51 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:He comes in here to set everyone straight, writing, "I don't think you on the anti-Revisionist side have a good enough understanding of cremation and consistently reveal your misconceptions about it. While the claims you make about cremation capacity and such are documented, probably were attainable, and probably in fact occurred, your conceptions about what is entailed in those claims are incorrect and physically impossible. Hence you give bad counter-arguments."

Now he's reduced to weaseling about his own claims and confessing "So let's just sum up and then drop the issue for me to digest what the claims even are. . . . I honestly never knew how you squared the numbers. Such is all I'd like to get from this discussion for now."

It turns out he "honestly never knew" what was being claimed on what he charmingly calls "the Anti-Revisionist side."

Such is "revisionism."


Wow, SM, you REALLY like tilting at windmills, don't you? The claim that 4 corpses can be fully cremated in an hour was PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE in those fixed cremation ovens at Birkenau. Do you not get that? I tell you that you have it all wrong and that the average is merely the stoking average which equals the average cremation rate over many corpses. This IS physically possible. You, with the username "Statistical Mechanic" of all things then go off on entirely different matters and say I am "weaseling about [my] own claims". You don't even understand my claims. You probably STILL don't understand my claims.

Can you tell me why it was physically impossible to fully cremate 4 corpses in an hour in one of those Birkenau cremation ovens, "Statistical Mechanic"?

Can you tell me how I have given you a solution to that physical impossibility?

Let's have your understanding of what my claims are, "Statistical Mechanic".

If you understand a document to be saying that flying pigs dropped pixie dust on a room full of people and therefore turned them all into stone, is that just fine and dandy by you, "Statistical Mechanic"? Such must've been the case; you understand the documents to be saying that!

I want your answers to these questions, you ignorant blowhard. Fire away, loudmouth. Let's hear it, "Statistical Mechanic".

What is your understanding about HOW the oven cremations were done at Birkenau? Do you think the average incineration rate of one corpse was 15 minutes? Do you think that by putting N corpses concurrently in one of those ovens that all N would be fully incinerated in 15N minutes?

When you eventually GET what I've told you, THEN revisit this garbage post of yours and tell me why you would post such a thing. Tell me in excruciating detail where what you've posted from me above is incorrect, you impertinent Don Quixote quibbler of no substance.

EDIT: Am I supposed to SEMANTICALLY parse this crap you've written in this post to show your equivocations? Should such a thing even BE necessary? Have you EVER followed ANY points discussed in this thread? Why are you even posting your impertinencies? You arrogantly implied that I brought up the influx rate into AB for some sort of DOCUMENTARY quibble. Are you even following the discussion? Tell me what YOU think it has been about. Why did I bring up the daily incoming distribution of Hungarian Jews? Did you think I wished to argue about what YOU thought it to be? You really kill those windmills dead; what a hero!

User avatar
Denying-History
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2056
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:01 pm

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby Denying-History » Tue Jul 10, 2018 12:33 am

blake121666 wrote:Wow, SM, you REALLY like tilting at windmills, don't you? The claim that 4 corpses can be fully cremated in an hour was PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE in those fixed cremation ovens at Birkenau. Do you not get that? I tell you that you have it all wrong and that the average is merely the stoking average which equals the average cremation rate over many corpses. This IS physically possible. You, with the username "Statistical Mechanic" of all things then go off on entirely different matters and say I am "weaseling about [my] own claims". You don't even understand my claims. You probably STILL don't understand my claims.

[...]

What is your understanding about HOW the oven cremations were done at Birkenau? Do you think the average incineration rate of one corpse was 15 minutes? Do you think that by putting N corpses concurrently in one of those ovens that all N would be fully incinerated in 15N minutes?...


Awe someone seems angry. Unsurprisingly the Germans seemed to have thought this rate possible in their ovens possibly achieving it, it what Piper claims is correct. Also no one said it was a "15 minute" cremation cycle, it was 30 minutes for two bodies in the muffle at once.
« The Terror here is a horrifying fact. There is a fear that reaches down and haunts all sections of the community. No household, however humble, apparently but what lives in constant fear of nocturnal raid by the secret police. . .This particular purge is undoubtedly political. . . It is deliberately projected by the party leaders, who themselves regretted the necessity for it. »
Joseph E. Davies

blake121666
Poster
Posts: 116
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2017 3:51 pm

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby blake121666 » Tue Jul 10, 2018 12:35 am

Denying-History wrote:
blake121666 wrote:Wow, SM, you REALLY like tilting at windmills, don't you? The claim that 4 corpses can be fully cremated in an hour was PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE in those fixed cremation ovens at Birkenau. Do you not get that? I tell you that you have it all wrong and that the average is merely the stoking average which equals the average cremation rate over many corpses. This IS physically possible. You, with the username "Statistical Mechanic" of all things then go off on entirely different matters and say I am "weaseling about [my] own claims". You don't even understand my claims. You probably STILL don't understand my claims.

[...]

What is your understanding about HOW the oven cremations were done at Birkenau? Do you think the average incineration rate of one corpse was 15 minutes? Do you think that by putting N corpses concurrently in one of those ovens that all N would be fully incinerated in 15N minutes?...


Awe someone seems angry. Unsurprisingly the Germans seemed to have thought this rate possible in their ovens possibly achieving it, it what Piper claims is correct. Also no one said it was a "15 minute" cremation cycle, it was 30 minutes for two bodies in the muffle at once.


So you think 2 corpses FULLY cremated in one of those oven muffles after 30 minutes?

Is this what you believe?

Why did it take about an hour (give or take) to fully cremate a typical corpse in each of the other cremation ovens?

Do you believe those ovens to have had the power to fully incinerate TWO corpses in half an hour?

I thought it was only SM that was the dense one here. Can you tell me how an average cremation rate of 4 corpses an hour was obtained for the Birkenau ovens?

User avatar
Denying-History
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2056
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:01 pm

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby Denying-History » Tue Jul 10, 2018 12:48 am

blake121666 wrote:
Denying-History wrote:
blake121666 wrote:Wow, SM, you REALLY like tilting at windmills, don't you? The claim that 4 corpses can be fully cremated in an hour was PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE in those fixed cremation ovens at Birkenau. Do you not get that? I tell you that you have it all wrong and that the average is merely the stoking average which equals the average cremation rate over many corpses. This IS physically possible. You, with the username "Statistical Mechanic" of all things then go off on entirely different matters and say I am "weaseling about [my] own claims". You don't even understand my claims. You probably STILL don't understand my claims.

[...]

What is your understanding about HOW the oven cremations were done at Birkenau? Do you think the average incineration rate of one corpse was 15 minutes? Do you think that by putting N corpses concurrently in one of those ovens that all N would be fully incinerated in 15N minutes?...


Awe someone seems angry. Unsurprisingly the Germans seemed to have thought this rate possible in their ovens possibly achieving it, it what Piper claims is correct. Also no one said it was a "15 minute" cremation cycle, it was 30 minutes for two bodies in the muffle at once.


So you think 2 corpses FULLY cremated in one of those oven muffles after 30 minutes? Is this what you believe? Why does it take about an hour (give or take) to fully cremate corpses in all of the other cremation ovens? Do you believe these ovens to have had the power to fully create TWO corpses in half an hour?

I didn't say they were "FULLY" cremated. What I was saying was no one claims it was a body braking down every 15 minutes, which you did imply by saying "Do you think the average incineration rate of one corpse was 15 minutes?". That sounds like a cycle to me if you continually nag on "15 minute" times.

Still what isn't impossible is breaking down two corpses in 30 minutes considering this fits in with a statement quoted by Zimmerman, which he summarizes "the comments of another conference [participant]* who suggested that most of the burning occurred in the first 30 minutes". I specifically stated however this time only related to the period in the Muffle, which after the bodies have broken down enough another body could be placed on top as is the described process. So no 4 corpses an hour is not impossible, it depends on the weight of the bodies being cremated and the temperature of the oven.

*Corrected.
« The Terror here is a horrifying fact. There is a fear that reaches down and haunts all sections of the community. No household, however humble, apparently but what lives in constant fear of nocturnal raid by the secret police. . .This particular purge is undoubtedly political. . . It is deliberately projected by the party leaders, who themselves regretted the necessity for it. »
Joseph E. Davies

blake121666
Poster
Posts: 116
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2017 3:51 pm

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby blake121666 » Tue Jul 10, 2018 12:53 am

Denying-History wrote:
blake121666 wrote:
Denying-History wrote:
blake121666 wrote:Wow, SM, you REALLY like tilting at windmills, don't you? The claim that 4 corpses can be fully cremated in an hour was PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE in those fixed cremation ovens at Birkenau. Do you not get that? I tell you that you have it all wrong and that the average is merely the stoking average which equals the average cremation rate over many corpses. This IS physically possible. You, with the username "Statistical Mechanic" of all things then go off on entirely different matters and say I am "weaseling about [my] own claims". You don't even understand my claims. You probably STILL don't understand my claims.

[...]

What is your understanding about HOW the oven cremations were done at Birkenau? Do you think the average incineration rate of one corpse was 15 minutes? Do you think that by putting N corpses concurrently in one of those ovens that all N would be fully incinerated in 15N minutes?...


Awe someone seems angry. Unsurprisingly the Germans seemed to have thought this rate possible in their ovens possibly achieving it, it what Piper claims is correct. Also no one said it was a "15 minute" cremation cycle, it was 30 minutes for two bodies in the muffle at once.


So you think 2 corpses FULLY cremated in one of those oven muffles after 30 minutes? Is this what you believe? Why does it take about an hour (give or take) to fully cremate corpses in all of the other cremation ovens? Do you believe these ovens to have had the power to fully create TWO corpses in half an hour?

I didn't say they were "FULLY" cremated. What I was saying was no one claims it was a body braking down every 15 minutes, which you did imply by saying "Do you think the average incineration rate of one corpse was 15 minutes?". That sounds like a cycle to me if you continually nag on "15 minute" times.

Still what isn't impossible is breaking down two corpses in 30 minutes considering this fits in with a statement quoted by Zimmerman, which he summarizes "the comments of another conference [participant]* who suggested that most of the burning occurred in the first 30 minutes". I specifically stated however this time only related to the period in the Muffle, which after the bodies have broken down enough another body could be placed on top as is the described process. So no 4 corpses an hour is not impossible, it depends on the weight of the bodies being cremated and the temperature of the oven.

*Corrected.


It looks like we're going to have to go over this quite slowly for you people on this board (not including Balmoral and Hans).

Do you understand the procedure used to cremate corpses as given in the manual for the Gusen oven? Can you relate to me the procedure used there? And the results?
Last edited by blake121666 on Tue Jul 10, 2018 12:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 21978
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Tue Jul 10, 2018 12:53 am

blake121666 wrote:Wow, SM, you REALLY like tilting at windmills, don't you? The claim that 4 corpses can be fully cremated in an hour is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE in these fixed cremation ovens. Do you not get that?

I didn't write about that. In fact, I tried to get you to stick with transports - you brought them up - and answer specific questions about transport numbers. Which you still haven't done. I did however quote you saying that you are boning up on what "anti-Revisionists" think, after starting off claiming their arguments are deficient.

And you did tell Sergey, after lecturing us on what "the anti-Revisionist side" thinks that you were not aware of what "the anti-Revisionist side" thinks. I noticed - and commented on that - as your methodology is fair game.

blake121666 wrote:I tell you that you have it all wrong and that the average is merely the stoking average which equals the average cremation rate over many corpses. This IS physically possible.

We were discussing other matters, I haven't said a thing about cremation rates and process, and I don't know what you think has been claimed or what you think is physically possible. Your rant here is all over the place.

blake121666 wrote:You, with the username "Statistical Mechanic" of all things then go off on entirely different matters

No, in fact I tried staying with the matter you asked me about, and you veered off.

blake121666 wrote:say I am "weaseling about [my] own claims". You don't even understand my claims. You probably STILL don't understand my claims.

You are weaseling about your own claims: you wrote, of the ovens, that "The Auschwitz claim is that over 11,000 corpses per day were incinerated somehow." Also, you replied to Sergey that you wouldn't explain here why it is that you don't "accept[...] the GCs and the mass murder," and then you replied to my question about this asking me "let's just start with the Hungarian transports to Auschwitz." Besides, "I have been clear enough about what I meant. You are bickering." You've still not said whether you accept the general outline given by Braham and Stark and the daily rates from Hans/Sergey.

blake121666 wrote:Can you tell me why it was physically impossible to fully cremate 4 corpses in an hour in one of those Birkenau cremation ovens, "Statistical Mechanic"?

Can you finally answer what I asked you about the transports, the topic you asked me about?

blake121666 wrote:If you understand a document to be saying that flying pigs dropped pixie dust on a room full of people and therefore turned them all into stone, is that just fine and dandy by you, "Statistical Mechanic"? Such must've been the case; you understand the documents to be saying that!

What on earth are you talking about?

blake121666 wrote:II want your answers to these questions, you ignorant blowhard. Fire away, loudmouth. Let's hear it, "Statistical Mechanic".

Somehow you think I had a lot to say on a point that I wrote nary a word about. How odd.

blake121666 wrote:What is your understanding about HOW the oven cremations were done at Birkenau? Do you think the average incineration rate of one corpse was 15 minutes? Do you think that by putting N corpses concurrently in one of those ovens that all N would be fully incinerated in 15N minutes?

We are discussing transports. You're jumping the gun. And where did I ever say anything like "by putting N corpses concurrently in one of those ovens that all N would be fully incinerated in 15N minutes"? Answer: Nowhere.

blake121666 wrote:When you eventually GET what I've told you, THEN revisit this garbage post of yours and tell me why you would post such a thing.

I went ahead and told you already, see. Take a calm pill - and answer what you've been asked before making an ass of yourself again.
"It was still at the stage of clubs and fists, hurrah, tala"

blake121666
Poster
Posts: 116
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2017 3:51 pm

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby blake121666 » Tue Jul 10, 2018 12:56 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
blake121666 wrote:Wow, SM, you REALLY like tilting at windmills, don't you? The claim that 4 corpses can be fully cremated in an hour is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE in these fixed cremation ovens. Do you not get that?

I didn't write about that. In fact, I tried to get you to stick with transports - you brought them up - and answer specific questions about transport numbers. Which you still haven't done. I did however quote you saying that you are boning up on what "anti-Revisionists" think, after starting off claiming their arguments are deficient.

And you did tell Sergey, after lecturing us on what "the anti-Revisionist side" thinks that you were not aware of what "the anti-Revisionist side" thinks. I noticed - and commented on that - as your methodology is fair game.

blake121666 wrote:I tell you that you have it all wrong and that the average is merely the stoking average which equals the average cremation rate over many corpses. This IS physically possible.

We were discussing other matters, I haven't said a thing about cremation rates and process, and I don't know what you think has been claimed or what you think is physically possible. Your rant here is all over the place.

blake121666 wrote:You, with the username "Statistical Mechanic" of all things then go off on entirely different matters

No, in fact I tried staying with the matter you asked me about, and you veered off.

blake121666 wrote:say I am "weaseling about [my] own claims". You don't even understand my claims. You probably STILL don't understand my claims.

You are weaseling about your own claims: you wrote, of the ovens, that "The Auschwitz claim is that over 11,000 corpses per day were incinerated somehow." Also, you replied to Sergey that you wouldn't explain here why it is that you don't "accept[...] the GCs and the mass murder," and then you replied to my question about this asking me "let's just start with the Hungarian transports to Auschwitz." Besides, "I have been clear enough about what I meant. You are bickering." You've still not said whether you accept the general outline given by Braham and Stark and the daily rates from Hans/Sergey.

blake121666 wrote:Can you tell me why it was physically impossible to fully cremate 4 corpses in an hour in one of those Birkenau cremation ovens, "Statistical Mechanic"?

Can you finally answer what I asked you about the transports, the topic you asked me about?

blake121666 wrote:If you understand a document to be saying that flying pigs dropped pixie dust on a room full of people and therefore turned them all into stone, is that just fine and dandy by you, "Statistical Mechanic"? Such must've been the case; you understand the documents to be saying that!

What on earth are you talking about?

blake121666 wrote:II want your answers to these questions, you ignorant blowhard. Fire away, loudmouth. Let's hear it, "Statistical Mechanic".

Somehow you think I had a lot to say on a point that I wrote nary a word about. How odd.

blake121666 wrote:What is your understanding about HOW the oven cremations were done at Birkenau? Do you think the average incineration rate of one corpse was 15 minutes? Do you think that by putting N corpses concurrently in one of those ovens that all N would be fully incinerated in 15N minutes?

We are discussing transports. You're jumping the gun. And where did I ever say anything like "by putting N corpses concurrently in one of those ovens that all N would be fully incinerated in 15N minutes"? Answer: Nowhere.

blake121666 wrote:When you eventually GET what I've told you, THEN revisit this garbage post of yours and tell me why you would post such a thing.

I went ahead and told you already, see. Take a calm pill - and answer what you've been asked before making an ass of yourself again.


We are not discussing transports in isolation to points about incineration rates. We can return to the issue after I've explained what we are even talking about with D-H. It looks like most of you are in the weeds about the points I was making.

User avatar
Denying-History
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2056
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:01 pm

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby Denying-History » Tue Jul 10, 2018 1:02 am

I only see weaseling. Just wanted to say you were saying something no one claimed. Anyway, I'm off to facebook. Have some better things to do then argue with Blake over if a body would break down enough in 30 minutes or if It was really 33 minutes ect.
« The Terror here is a horrifying fact. There is a fear that reaches down and haunts all sections of the community. No household, however humble, apparently but what lives in constant fear of nocturnal raid by the secret police. . .This particular purge is undoubtedly political. . . It is deliberately projected by the party leaders, who themselves regretted the necessity for it. »
Joseph E. Davies

blake121666
Poster
Posts: 116
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2017 3:51 pm

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby blake121666 » Tue Jul 10, 2018 1:04 am

Denying-History wrote:I only see weaseling. Just wanted to say you were saying something no one claimed. Anyway, I'm off to facebook. Have some better things to do then argue with Blake over if a body would break down enough in 30 minutes or if It was really 33 minutes ect.


You said TWO corpses did you not? The AVERAGE of your 30-33 minutes is then 15-17 minutes per corpse.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 21978
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Tue Jul 10, 2018 1:12 am

blake121666 wrote:We are not discussing transports in isolation to points about incineration rates. We can return to the issue after I've explained what we are even talking about with D-H. It looks like most of you are in the weeds about the points I was making.

blake, you asked me specifically about transports, without reference to incineration rates:
let's just start with the Hungarian transports to Auschwitz. Hans mentioned in the other thread that the rate of influx of Hungarian Jews to Auschwitz was not as typically claimed. Do you know of any online reference to what is believed to be this rate of influx? Does it agree with the Veesenmayer telegrams? What are the bases of any claims you, or anyone else, might have about this rate? I typically read of extended periods of time (weeks) of 12,000+ Hungarian Jews per day sent to Auschwitz.

I wrote a fairly long reply, because it is a topic worthy of discussion, in fact. And it really is not directly tied up with incineration rates; it's a question of what's documented separately about deportations.

I'll just reiterate that, despite your feeling you've been clear what you think about the transport numbers, I don't believe that you have told us - you've generalized and you've not responded directly to specifics. There's no need to postpone the issue: you could have easily said whether you agreed or disagreed with Braham/Stark or Sergey/Hans.

Oh well instead I'll read the back and forth on incineration rates - and try to figure out why this statement is wrong: "The AVERAGE as I explained above is about 4 corpses per hour."
Last edited by Statistical Mechanic on Tue Jul 10, 2018 1:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
"It was still at the stage of clubs and fists, hurrah, tala"

User avatar
Denying-History
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2056
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:01 pm

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby Denying-History » Tue Jul 10, 2018 1:19 am

blake121666 wrote:
Denying-History wrote:I only see weaseling. Just wanted to say you were saying something no one claimed. Anyway, I'm off to facebook. Have some better things to do then argue with Blake over if a body would break down enough in 30 minutes or if It was really 33 minutes ect.


You said TWO corpses did you not? The AVERAGE of your 30-33 minutes is then 15-17 minutes per corpse.


I think you are missing the point... Regardless, you still have the issue with the transports to answer.
« The Terror here is a horrifying fact. There is a fear that reaches down and haunts all sections of the community. No household, however humble, apparently but what lives in constant fear of nocturnal raid by the secret police. . .This particular purge is undoubtedly political. . . It is deliberately projected by the party leaders, who themselves regretted the necessity for it. »
Joseph E. Davies

blake121666
Poster
Posts: 116
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2017 3:51 pm

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby blake121666 » Tue Jul 10, 2018 1:35 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
blake121666 wrote:We are not discussing transports in isolation to points about incineration rates. We can return to the issue after I've explained what we are even talking about with D-H. It looks like most of you are in the weeds about the points I was making.

blake, you asked me specifically about transports, without reference to incineration rates:
let's just start with the Hungarian transports to Auschwitz. Hans mentioned in the other thread that the rate of influx of Hungarian Jews to Auschwitz was not as typically claimed. Do you know of any online reference to what is believed to be this rate of influx? Does it agree with the Veesenmayer telegrams? What are the bases of any claims you, or anyone else, might have about this rate? I typically read of extended periods of time (weeks) of 12,000+ Hungarian Jews per day sent to Auschwitz.

I wrote a fairly long reply, because it is a topic worthy of discussion, in fact. And it really is not directly tied up with incineration rates; it's a question of what's documented separately about deportations.

I'll just reiterate that, despite your feeling you've been clear what you think about the transport numbers, I don't believe that you have told us - you've generalized and you've not responded directly to specifics. There's no need for postpone the issue: you could have easily said whether you agreed or disagreed with Braham/Stark or Sergey/Hans.

And instead I'll read the back and forth on incineration rates - and try to figure out why this statement is wrong: "The AVERAGE as I explained above is about 4 corpses per hour."


Well I've been clear enough in further posts. I was interested to know how you squared the alleged killing and cremating with the influx rate. No one has told me. The influx rate is whatever you wish to claim it is. I have no particular reason to wish to quibble about what you think that was - unless you say it was inline with the oven cremation rate or something (it obviously wasn't). I wanted to know how you correlated the influx with the killing and incinerating in ovens and pits. This you don't tell me.

The oven incineration rate was 3-4000 corpses per day. You must be saying the pit cremations were in parity, and even greater than that, on certain days. One can only wonder why ovens were employed at all for this operation?

I've actually never known how persons on your side allotted the cremations between ovens and pits. I still don't know that. You're simply of the opinion, "meh, it happened however it happened".

The POINT of the whole discussion was to see how many corpses needed to be incinerated in how little time - and how you claim that to have happened - not to overly quibble about what you believe the influx to have been (unless it turned out to be something objectionable).

blake121666
Poster
Posts: 116
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2017 3:51 pm

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby blake121666 » Tue Jul 10, 2018 1:36 am

Denying-History wrote:
blake121666 wrote:
Denying-History wrote:I only see weaseling. Just wanted to say you were saying something no one claimed. Anyway, I'm off to facebook. Have some better things to do then argue with Blake over if a body would break down enough in 30 minutes or if It was really 33 minutes ect.


You said TWO corpses did you not? The AVERAGE of your 30-33 minutes is then 15-17 minutes per corpse.


I think you are missing the point... Regardless, you still have the issue with the transports to answer.


No. You people keep missing the point. Keep losing your debates with persons who believe in energy considerations for the cremation process. I'm through here.

In fact, why don't you just say, "it happened because I say so because I believe it to have happened - miracle or not" with your "denier" debates. That's a winner.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 21978
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Tue Jul 10, 2018 1:53 am

blake121666 wrote:I was interested to know how you squared the alleged killing and cremating with the influx rate. No one has told me. The influx rate is whatever you wish to claim it is. I have no particular reason to wish to quibble about what you think that was - unless you say it was inline with the oven cremation rate or something (it obviously wasn't). I wanted to know how you correlated the influx with the killing and incinerating in ovens and pits. This you don't tell me.

Because you didn't ask me. You specifically did ask me for references on transports and how those references squared with Veesenmayer's reports. I replied. In the other thread with the title you don't like.

I did say that, at a high level, your rates of arrivals/killing were overstated, your rates for "fit" were understated, and your assumptions seemed to minimize outdoor cremations. Sergey and Hans (in this thread) gave more specific replies on the question you now ask, which I agreed with, not that I’ve studied the issues in depth (which is why I said I’d defer to their expertise on this).

blake121666 wrote:One can only wonder why ovens were employed at all for this operation?

They needed additional capacity to what was in place (sunk costs + functional fixity).

blake121666 wrote:The POINT of the whole discussion was to see how many corpses needed to be incinerated in how little time - and how you claim that to have happened - not to overly quibble about what you believe the influx to have been (unless it turned out to be something objectionable).

Again, this is not how you framed your queries about transports (arrivals/selections); getting the base number of arrivals, and their flow, straightened out is, I beg to differ, far from a quibble. It's a foundation for other matters.
"It was still at the stage of clubs and fists, hurrah, tala"

User avatar
Denying-History
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2056
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:01 pm

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby Denying-History » Tue Jul 10, 2018 2:10 am

blake121666 wrote:
Denying-History wrote:
blake121666 wrote:
Denying-History wrote:I only see weaseling. Just wanted to say you were saying something no one claimed. Anyway, I'm off to facebook. Have some better things to do then argue with Blake over if a body would break down enough in 30 minutes or if It was really 33 minutes ect.


You said TWO corpses did you not? The AVERAGE of your 30-33 minutes is then 15-17 minutes per corpse.


I think you are missing the point... Regardless, you still have the issue with the transports to answer.


No. You people keep missing the point. Keep losing your debates with persons who believe in energy considerations for the cremation process. I'm through here.

In fact, why don't you just say, "it happened because I say so because I believe it to have happened - miracle or not" with your "denier" debates. That's a winner.
Lol Someone is really invested... No the point I am trying to make is saying a 15 minute average is misleading, it took around 40 minutes total to cremate a body, and considering they cremated two corpses at once it should really be around 20-30 minutes average in the muffle and another 20 minutes in the ash collector. Yet apparently you are focused on "15 minutes" for some reason.

You also seemed to have missed that the point behind "30-33 minutes" as well... Its really samantics, in the end what really matters is how meny corpses could be cremated in 1 hour, and the point you attempted to disprove was an average of 4 corpses an hour, which is technically phesable.
« The Terror here is a horrifying fact. There is a fear that reaches down and haunts all sections of the community. No household, however humble, apparently but what lives in constant fear of nocturnal raid by the secret police. . .This particular purge is undoubtedly political. . . It is deliberately projected by the party leaders, who themselves regretted the necessity for it. »
Joseph E. Davies

blake121666
Poster
Posts: 116
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2017 3:51 pm

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby blake121666 » Tue Jul 10, 2018 2:21 am

Denying-History wrote:
blake121666 wrote:
Denying-History wrote:
blake121666 wrote:
Denying-History wrote:I only see weaseling. Just wanted to say you were saying something no one claimed. Anyway, I'm off to facebook. Have some better things to do then argue with Blake over if a body would break down enough in 30 minutes or if It was really 33 minutes ect.


You said TWO corpses did you not? The AVERAGE of your 30-33 minutes is then 15-17 minutes per corpse.


I think you are missing the point... Regardless, you still have the issue with the transports to answer.


No. You people keep missing the point. Keep losing your debates with persons who believe in energy considerations for the cremation process. I'm through here.

In fact, why don't you just say, "it happened because I say so because I believe it to have happened - miracle or not" with your "denier" debates. That's a winner.
Lol Someone is really invested... No the point I am trying to make is saying a 15 minute average is misleading, it took around 40 minutes total to cremate a body, and considering they cremated two corpses at once it should really be around 20-30 minutes average in the muffle and another 20 minutes in the ash collector. Yet apparently you are focused on "15 minutes" for some reason.

You also seemed to have missed that the point behind "30-33 minutes" as well... Its really samantics, in the end what really matters is how meny corpses could be cremated in 1 hour, and the point you attempted to disprove was an average of 4 corpses an hour, which is technically phesable.


The 15 minutes per corpse was a mathematical average - stated to consider the energy requirements. ALL of the numbers I am throwing around are averages in some way or other for different purposes. The "corpse" itself is in fact only referring to "about 50 kg with the average physical material distribution of a human". The 15 minutes per corpse was stated purely for energy considerations.

For instance, the AVERAGE to fully incinerate those 2 corpses you threw into the muffle concurrently would have been about 40 minutes. It would have taken about 80 minutes for both to have been fully incinerated (assuming a process of 2 corpses every half hour). No typical corpse would have fully incinerated before about 80 minutes though - when 2 would be fully incinerated; hence an "average" of 40 minutes for a "corpse". Do you see what I am saying?

Is this what you are claiming above? It isn't too clear to me. Do you see why this is the case for energy considerations?

Do you see how the 15 minutes per corpse relates to the 80 minutes until any is fully incinerated? Do you understand and agree with what I am saying here?

EDIT: The 80 minutes is an empirical result, btw. It is 2/3 * (60 + 60) minutes. Such is the case from energy requirements.

EDIT 2: BTW, your "2 corpses in 30 minutes" is an average of the stoking rate - which has nothing to do with the energy requirements. The stoking rate is the rate in which you stoke the oven. And it is asymptotically EQUAL to the AVERAGE cremation rate. Such is the whole point. If you get this, then you get my point. The average cremation rate is the average stoking rate. But the energy requirements are determining how much you can actually incinerate.
Last edited by blake121666 on Tue Jul 10, 2018 2:38 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Denying-History
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2056
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:01 pm

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby Denying-History » Tue Jul 10, 2018 2:35 am

blake121666 wrote:
Denying-History wrote:
blake121666 wrote:
Denying-History wrote:
blake121666 wrote:
Denying-History wrote:I only see weaseling. Just wanted to say you were saying something no one claimed. Anyway, I'm off to facebook. Have some better things to do then argue with Blake over if a body would break down enough in 30 minutes or if It was really 33 minutes ect.


You said TWO corpses did you not? The AVERAGE of your 30-33 minutes is then 15-17 minutes per corpse.


I think you are missing the point... Regardless, you still have the issue with the transports to answer.


No. You people keep missing the point. Keep losing your debates with persons who believe in energy considerations for the cremation process. I'm through here.

In fact, why don't you just say, "it happened because I say so because I believe it to have happened - miracle or not" with your "denier" debates. That's a winner.
Lol Someone is really invested... No the point I am trying to make is saying a 15 minute average is misleading, it took around 40 minutes total to cremate a body, and considering they cremated two corpses at once it should really be around 20-30 minutes average in the muffle and another 20 minutes in the ash collector. Yet apparently you are focused on "15 minutes" for some reason.

You also seemed to have missed that the point behind "30-33 minutes" as well... Its really samantics, in the end what really matters is how meny corpses could be cremated in 1 hour, and the point you attempted to disprove was an average of 4 corpses an hour, which is technically phesable.


The 15 minutes per corpse was a mathematical average - stated to consider the energy requirements. ALL of the numbers I am throwing around are averages in some way or other for different purposes. The "corpse" itself is in fact only referring to "about 50 kg with a material distribution of a human". The 15 minutes per corpse was stated purely for energy considerations.

For instance, the AVERAGE to fully incinerate those 2 corpses you threw into the muffle concurrently would have been about 40 minutes. It would have taken about 80 minutes for both to have been fully incinerated (assuming a process of 2 corpses every half hour). No corpse would have fully incinerated before about 80 minutes though.

Is this what you are claiming above? It isn't too clear to me. Do you see why this is the case for energy considerations?

Do you see how the 15 minutes per corpse relates to the 80 minutes until any is fully incinerated? Do you understand and agree with what I am saying here?
Look, what I am saying is quite simple, and I'll quote Pressac saying it:

"Prufer calculated that each crucible could handle two bodies every 30 minutes and that the installation as a whole therefore would be capable of burning 60 bodies an hour, or 1,440 bodies in 24 hours." (Anatomy of Auschwitz p.199)

This is all I am saying, is that its more accurate to consider cremation time im pairs. So its simply that to cremate a body it should take 30 minutes time with 20 minutes spare in the ash collector. So It is to a degree inaccurate to consider it a rate of 15 minutes per body, outside of number crunching.
« The Terror here is a horrifying fact. There is a fear that reaches down and haunts all sections of the community. No household, however humble, apparently but what lives in constant fear of nocturnal raid by the secret police. . .This particular purge is undoubtedly political. . . It is deliberately projected by the party leaders, who themselves regretted the necessity for it. »
Joseph E. Davies

blake121666
Poster
Posts: 116
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2017 3:51 pm

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby blake121666 » Tue Jul 10, 2018 2:40 am

Denying-History wrote:
blake121666 wrote:
Denying-History wrote:
blake121666 wrote:
Denying-History wrote:
blake121666 wrote:
Denying-History wrote:I only see weaseling. Just wanted to say you were saying something no one claimed. Anyway, I'm off to facebook. Have some better things to do then argue with Blake over if a body would break down enough in 30 minutes or if It was really 33 minutes ect.


You said TWO corpses did you not? The AVERAGE of your 30-33 minutes is then 15-17 minutes per corpse.


I think you are missing the point... Regardless, you still have the issue with the transports to answer.


No. You people keep missing the point. Keep losing your debates with persons who believe in energy considerations for the cremation process. I'm through here.

In fact, why don't you just say, "it happened because I say so because I believe it to have happened - miracle or not" with your "denier" debates. That's a winner.
Lol Someone is really invested... No the point I am trying to make is saying a 15 minute average is misleading, it took around 40 minutes total to cremate a body, and considering they cremated two corpses at once it should really be around 20-30 minutes average in the muffle and another 20 minutes in the ash collector. Yet apparently you are focused on "15 minutes" for some reason.

You also seemed to have missed that the point behind "30-33 minutes" as well... Its really samantics, in the end what really matters is how meny corpses could be cremated in 1 hour, and the point you attempted to disprove was an average of 4 corpses an hour, which is technically phesable.


The 15 minutes per corpse was a mathematical average - stated to consider the energy requirements. ALL of the numbers I am throwing around are averages in some way or other for different purposes. The "corpse" itself is in fact only referring to "about 50 kg with a material distribution of a human". The 15 minutes per corpse was stated purely for energy considerations.

For instance, the AVERAGE to fully incinerate those 2 corpses you threw into the muffle concurrently would have been about 40 minutes. It would have taken about 80 minutes for both to have been fully incinerated (assuming a process of 2 corpses every half hour). No corpse would have fully incinerated before about 80 minutes though.

Is this what you are claiming above? It isn't too clear to me. Do you see why this is the case for energy considerations?

Do you see how the 15 minutes per corpse relates to the 80 minutes until any is fully incinerated? Do you understand and agree with what I am saying here?
Look, what I am saying is quite simple, and I'll quote Pressac saying it:

"Prufer calculated that each crucible could handle two bodies every 30 minutes and that the installation as a whole therefore would be capable of burning 60 bodies an hour, or 1,440 bodies in 24 hours." (Anatomy of Auschwitz p.199)

This is all I am saying, is that its more accurate to consider cremation time im pairs. So its simply that to cremate a body it should take 30 minutes time with 20 minutes spare in the ash collector. So It is to a degree inaccurate to consider it a rate of 15 minutes per body, outside of number crunching.


No, you don't have the energy available to do that. Your STOKING RATE is 30 minutes and this is equal to the AVERAGE cremation rate. It has NOTHING TO DO with how long any corpse would take to cremate.

I'll go over it tomorrow. What you said here is quite wrong. You and Pressac are stating physical impossibilities. I've had a couple and don't wish to post now.

User avatar
Denying-History
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2056
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:01 pm

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby Denying-History » Tue Jul 10, 2018 3:08 am

"Physical impossibilities"

"On 30 October 1941, the SS construction office Auschwitz noted that the planned crematorium 2 will have a cremation rate of 15 min per corpse (Mattogno, I Forni Crematori di Auschwitz, Documentazione, p. 353). (Such a rate would, for example, correspond to simultaneously cremating 2 bodies in 30 min)."

"In a report of SS-Hauptsturmführer Krone from the WVHA of 20 January 1943, it reads that “two oil-fueled cremation furnaces...can dispose of some 100 bodies in a 12-hour period” in the concentration camp Majdanek, i.e. 15 min per corpse (Graf & Mattogno, Concentration Camp Majdanek) (Such a rate would, for example, correspond to simultaneously cremating 2 bodies in 30 min)."

"On 4 February 1944, oven builder Hans Kori wrote to the Majdanek concentration camp that the cremation time of his ovens can be halved to 30 min per corpse by employing multiple cremations (Mattogno, I Forni Crematori di Auschwitz, Documentazione, p. 422)."

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... -part.html

Yeah, not going to say this twice. Nor does it seem you are familiar with Pressac's writings ether if you think he was endorsing that figure considering his own is at 3,250 (Rounded to 3 corpses an hour). However I was saying is that its technically possible to reach 4, and it is.
« The Terror here is a horrifying fact. There is a fear that reaches down and haunts all sections of the community. No household, however humble, apparently but what lives in constant fear of nocturnal raid by the secret police. . .This particular purge is undoubtedly political. . . It is deliberately projected by the party leaders, who themselves regretted the necessity for it. »
Joseph E. Davies

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1752
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby Balsamo » Tue Jul 10, 2018 4:48 am

blake121666 wrote:
Denying-History wrote:
blake121666 wrote:
Denying-History wrote:
blake121666 wrote:
Denying-History wrote:
blake121666 wrote:
Denying-History wrote:I only see weaseling. Just wanted to say you were saying something no one claimed. Anyway, I'm off to facebook. Have some better things to do then argue with Blake over if a body would break down enough in 30 minutes or if It was really 33 minutes ect.


You said TWO corpses did you not? The AVERAGE of your 30-33 minutes is then 15-17 minutes per corpse.


I think you are missing the point... Regardless, you still have the issue with the transports to answer.


No. You people keep missing the point. Keep losing your debates with persons who believe in energy considerations for the cremation process. I'm through here.

In fact, why don't you just say, "it happened because I say so because I believe it to have happened - miracle or not" with your "denier" debates. That's a winner.
Lol Someone is really invested... No the point I am trying to make is saying a 15 minute average is misleading, it took around 40 minutes total to cremate a body, and considering they cremated two corpses at once it should really be around 20-30 minutes average in the muffle and another 20 minutes in the ash collector. Yet apparently you are focused on "15 minutes" for some reason.

You also seemed to have missed that the point behind "30-33 minutes" as well... Its really samantics, in the end what really matters is how meny corpses could be cremated in 1 hour, and the point you attempted to disprove was an average of 4 corpses an hour, which is technically phesable.


The 15 minutes per corpse was a mathematical average - stated to consider the energy requirements. ALL of the numbers I am throwing around are averages in some way or other for different purposes. The "corpse" itself is in fact only referring to "about 50 kg with a material distribution of a human". The 15 minutes per corpse was stated purely for energy considerations.

For instance, the AVERAGE to fully incinerate those 2 corpses you threw into the muffle concurrently would have been about 40 minutes. It would have taken about 80 minutes for both to have been fully incinerated (assuming a process of 2 corpses every half hour). No corpse would have fully incinerated before about 80 minutes though.

Is this what you are claiming above? It isn't too clear to me. Do you see why this is the case for energy considerations?

Do you see how the 15 minutes per corpse relates to the 80 minutes until any is fully incinerated? Do you understand and agree with what I am saying here?
Look, what I am saying is quite simple, and I'll quote Pressac saying it:

"Prufer calculated that each crucible could handle two bodies every 30 minutes and that the installation as a whole therefore would be capable of burning 60 bodies an hour, or 1,440 bodies in 24 hours." (Anatomy of Auschwitz p.199)

This is all I am saying, is that its more accurate to consider cremation time im pairs. So its simply that to cremate a body it should take 30 minutes time with 20 minutes spare in the ash collector. So It is to a degree inaccurate to consider it a rate of 15 minutes per body, outside of number crunching.


No, you don't have the energy available to do that. Your STOKING RATE is 30 minutes and this is equal to the AVERAGE cremation rate. It has NOTHING TO DO with how long any corpse would take to cremate.

I'll go over it tomorrow. What you said here is quite wrong. You and Pressac are stating physical impossibilities. I've had a couple and don't wish to post now.


Blake,

I think that what everyone would like to know is whether you are about to repeat Mattogno pseudo scientific calculations using other words - which is what is still going on on rodoh - or if you about to share something new about physical impossibilities.

So please, you are more than welcome to submit your data on which are based your conclusion that the cremation of 4 bodies an hour in each muffle is impossible.

Hans
Poster
Posts: 303
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:25 pm

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby Hans » Tue Jul 10, 2018 5:03 am

blake121666 wrote:
Sergey_Romanov wrote:> It looks like you require open air cremations practically EVERY day for the first month. Is this your contention?

I think this has always been the default assumption supported by witness evidence.


I was unaware of this. I was under the impression that the open air cremations were only done when the ovens could not handle the cremation load. You seem to be saying that they were done every day for this Hungarian operation. Now I know your claim better.

So let's just sum up and then drop the issue for me to digest what the claims even are:

1. What were the average and maximum cremation rates for the ovens during this Hungarian action?
2. What were the average and maximum cremation rates for the pits during this Hungarian action?
3. Where was the fuel stockpiled for the pit cremations? The fuel was wood, correct?

I honestly never knew how you squared the numbers. Such is all I'd like to get from this discussion for now.


IMO the crematorium 2 & 3 had to incinerate at a pace of 4000 corpses per day to efficiently exploit the gas chamber capacity. This corresponds to a loading cycle of 2-3 corpses every 30 min (or 2 corpses every 20 min or 4 corpses every 40 min...).

This leaves some 5500 corpses for crematoria 4 & 5 and the Bunker complex. Assuming the same loading cycle, crematoria 4 & 5 could dispose about 2000 corpses, leaving 3500 for open air cremation. If crematoria 4 & 5 did not achieve these figures (because of less corpses per cycle, slower cycles or because of breakdown), the numbers would shift towards open air cremation, which in the extreme case that the ovens of crematoria 4 & 5 were not used at all would amount to 5500 corpses incinerated per day at the outdoor cremation sites. If crematoria 2 & 3 could not achieve the above mentioned capacity (though I don't know any evidence why this should have been the case), the crematoria 4 & 5 and the Bunker complex had to take care of the excess, too. The more the crematoria could dispose, the less was left to the open cremation sites.

The fuel at the open air cremation sites was wood, brushes, oil, gasoline, fat of the corpses. There was no need for stockpiling huge amounts of wood, if your intention is to challenge this (classic denier argument). There were probably some heaps near the cremation sites that were filled up when consumed. Some wood was brought in with the trains from Hungary, others was chopped in the forests as needed, others might have been purchased from the forestry and transported to the sites as needed (like it was done at Chelmno extermination camp). The Jewish Sonderkommando had 30 "wood unloaders" at crematorium 5 according to German documents. If you are in doubt that crematorium 5 (and the Bunker) received large amounts of wood, I ask you to explain what the 30 "wood unloaders" were doing the whole day. Such a commando only makes sense if you need and continously receive large amounts of wood.
Last edited by Hans on Tue Jul 10, 2018 5:25 am, edited 1 time in total.

Balmoral95
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2109
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 4:14 am
Location: The Free Nambia Healthcare Nirvana

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby Balmoral95 » Tue Jul 10, 2018 5:23 am

Hans wrote:
blake121666 wrote:
Sergey_Romanov wrote:> It looks like you require open air cremations practically EVERY day for the first month. Is this your contention?

I think this has always been the default assumption supported by witness evidence.


I was unaware of this. I was under the impression that the open air cremations were only done when the ovens could not handle the cremation load. You seem to be saying that they were done every day for this Hungarian operation. Now I know your claim better.

So let's just sum up and then drop the issue for me to digest what the claims even are:

1. What were the average and maximum cremation rates for the ovens during this Hungarian action?
2. What were the average and maximum cremation rates for the pits during this Hungarian action?
3. Where was the fuel stockpiled for the pit cremations? The fuel was wood, correct?

I honestly never knew how you squared the numbers. Such is all I'd like to get from this discussion for now.


IMO the crematorium 2 & 3 had to incinerate at a pace of 4000 corpses per day to efficiently exploit the gas chamber capacity. This corresponds to a loading cycle of 2-3 corpses every 30 min.

This leaves some 5500 corpses for crematoria 4 & 5 and the Bunker complex. Assuming the same loading cycle, crematoria 4 & 5 could dispose about 2000 corpses, leaving 3500 for open air cremation. If crematoria 4 & 5 did not achieve these figures (because of less corpses per cycle, slower cycles or because of breakdown), the numbers would shift towards open air cremation, which in the extreme case that the ovens of crematoria 4 & 5 were not used at all would amount to 5500 corpses incinerated per day at the outdoor cremation sites. If crematoria 2 & 3 could not achieve the above mentioned capacity (though I don't know any evidence why this should have been the case), the crematoria 4 & 5 and the Bunker complex had to take care of the excess, too. The more the crematoria could dispose, the less was left to the open cremation sites.

The fuel at the open air cremation sites was wood, brushes, oil, gasoline, fat of the corpses. There was no need for stockpiling huge amounts of wood, if your intention is to challenge this (classic denier argument). There were probably some smaller heaps near the cremation sites that were filled up when consumed. Some wood was brought in with the trains from Hungary, others was chopped in the forests as needed, others might have been purchased from the forestry and transported to the sites as needed (like it was done at Chelmno extermination camp). The Jewish Sonderkommando had 30 "wood unloaders" at crematorium 5 according to German documents. If you are in doubt that crematorium 5 (and the Bunker) received large amounts of wood, I ask you to explain what the 30 "wood unloaders" were doing the whole day. Such a commando only makes sense if you need and continously receive large amounts of wood.


Okay, then are you saying that the open air cremations can match (or better) the daily "output" of the two sidelined Kremas (4 & 5)? If yes, why?

User avatar
Oozy_Substance
Poster
Posts: 369
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 10:48 am

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby Oozy_Substance » Tue Jul 10, 2018 5:37 am

Just a personal anecdote, my grandfather's relatives were on one of these shipments to Auschwitz from Northern Transylvania. I think, maybe, on May 17.
Out of 20+ relatives, only one survived.

Sergey_Romanov
Regular Poster
Posts: 530
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:15 am

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby Sergey_Romanov » Tue Jul 10, 2018 6:31 am

Balsamo wrote:
Sergey_Romanov wrote:Balsamo: > This is also my conclusion actually and the only solution basically. Now i don't enough on the topic to look for proofs, but it seems that there were Depot lager in sector BII, as well as the sector BIII, and that there is this german term "gesondert untergrebracht" which quite fit with the need.
Now i know that HC has concluded that it was just another way to express "to kill", but well, maybe, just maybe...it only mean what it actually says, that is "specially (gesondert having the same meaning than in SB, only while Treatment means death, Untergebracht means lodged until put to death... Just an idea.
---

It's not simply what we "concluded", it's what the documents and the Nazis say. Your hypothesis is thus baseless.

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... hwitz.html



Yes i have read this article, but then i do not pretend that "gesondert untergebracht" means "nicely settle in proper accomadation" as would a denier.
In my hypothesis, it means "delayed killing". So Perry Broad would not be wrong is saying that it meant "killing" ...well at some point...
This is why the term "gesondert is used" so that there would be no confusion...
I am not dismissing the witnesses here, but where there in the position to really check?
Granted those designated under those terms had to be considered as dead...but just like an execution squad, the squad would only kill X at the time, those who had been condemned to the same fate, would be kept alive until their turn come.

In the HC article you give some example, the first being:

Subject: Transfer of 5022 Jews from Theresienstadt
Reference: Your telex from 17.2.43 no. 1023
Overall number of arrivals on 21.1.43 2,000 Jews, from them selected for labor deployment 418 = 254 men and 164 women = 20.9%. On 24.1.43 2029 Jews, of them for labor deployment 228 = 148 men and 80 women = 11.2%. On 27.1.43 993 Jews, of them for labor deployment 284 = 212 men and 72 women = 22.5%. Separately accommodated [gesondert untergebracht] on 21.1.43 1582 = 602 men and 980 women and children, on 24.1,43 1801 = 623 men and 1178 women and children, on 27.1.43 709 = 197 men and 512 women and children. The special accommodation [Sonderunterbringung] of the men was due to too much frailty, that of women because most were children.


Sorry, but it can be understood at those women and children and frail men would be killed...between the next day and a week...not just upon arrival...that is something as "as soon as possible".

Concentration camp Auschwitz reports Jew-transport from Berlin. Arrival on 13.3.43. Total strength 964 Jews. For labor deployment came 218 men and 147 women. The men were transferred to Buna. Separately accommodated were 126 men and 473 women and children


I am not sure about the translation which says "separately"... But again, it could just mean that those selected will be killed at the first occasion, as soon as possible.

I am not saying that the term G.U has not a fatal meaning, just a different one than "special treatment".
So i was wondering if this term could be found in documents of the crucial period we are discussing about. That is it.

Now, after checking Van pelt, he just dismissed the term because something like there is no proof that such accommodation existed...Sorry that is a bit light to me.


1. The shooting of the Russians was immediate, not delayed, which negates your hypothesis. It was also synonymous with SB in these docs.

2. Specifically the language "The special accommodation [Sonderunterbringung] of the men was due to too much frailty, that of women because most were children" does not fit your hypothesis. If "special accommodation" was a necessary temporary holding facility due to inadequate extermination capacities, then the reason for special/separate accommodation would be "since the crematoria are now full" or something like that. The reason that is given is a reason for murder itself. Moreover, there is no reason that WVHA would need to know about such nuances as to whether the victims were temporarily held or not - so this term in your meaning would be out of place in such a telex in the first place.

3. There is zero support for your hypothesis in the testimonies of men who knew it personally, for example Stark:

Dann stand ich hinter der Kommission beziehungsweise seitlich von der Kommission und übernahm die Häftlinge zur Arbeit, die ich zu registrieren hatte. Gesamtzahl minus Arbeitsfähige würde dann rein rechnerisch die Zahl der »gesondert Unterzubringenden« ergeben. Diese Zahl durfte ich aber nicht allein rechnerisch ermitteln, sondern mußte sie mir auch bestätigen lassen.
[Das Verfahren: 153. Verhandlungstag (03.05.1965). Der 1. Frankfurter Auschwitz-Prozeß, S. 32781 (vgl. AP316.007, S. 0)]


Wenn ein Transport angekommen war, die Selektion stattgefunden hatte, habe ich meistens am nächsten Tag ein Fernschreiben etwa folgenden Inhalts nach Berlin abgesetzt, nachdem es durch den Abteilungsleiter unterzeichnet war:

Ich berichtige, der Abteilungsleiter hat das Fernschreiben abgesandt, ich habe es nur inhaltlich vorbereitet.

Ein solches Fernschreiben sah beispielsweise so aus (Daten, Namen und Zahlen sind willkürlich gewählt):
(Opper)

(Hans Stark)

(Leonhardt)

»Am 1. August 1942 kam in Auschwitz ein Transport mit 500 jüdischen Personen aus Lodz an. Hiervon wurden 200 Personen gesondert untergebracht.«

Daraus ergab sich für die Hauptstelle in Berlin auch die Anzahl der noch im Lager als arbeitsfähig vorhandenen Personen dieses Transportes.

Vorhalt des Gerichts:

Ich hatte also festzustellen die Anzahl der arbeitsfähig Selektierten und die Anzahl der »gesondert Untergebrachten«, um dieses Fernschreiben vorbereiten zu können. Meistens erfuhr ich diese beiden Zahlen auf dem Selektionsplatz selbst und fuhr dann unmittelbar mit dem Motorrad ins Büro zurück. Manchmal mußte ich aber diese Zahl erst bei den Gaskammern feststellen, und zwar habe ich das nicht selbst getan, sondern die Zahl wurde mir von einen Angehörigen des Begleitkommandos gesagt. Auch in diesen Fällen habe ich mich dann mit dem Motorrad ins Büro zurückbegeben.
[Das Verfahren: Vernehmungsprotokolle der Angeklagten. Der 1. Frankfurter Auschwitz-Prozeß, S. 4581-2 (vgl. Blatt 1588, S. 0)]

Nach der Vergasung wurde durch die Politische Abteilung gemeldet, wie viele Personen vergast und wie viele ins Lager gebracht worden waren.
Die Meldung habe ich vorbereitet, Grabner hat sie - glaube ich - unterschrieben. Auf der Meldung wurde die »Vergasung« mit »gesondert untergebracht« bezeichnet.
[Das Verfahren: 7. Verhandlungstag (16.01.1964). Der 1. Frankfurter Auschwitz-Prozeß, S. 4823-4 (vgl. Blatt Stark-7, S. 35)]

Ich blieb jeweils bis zum Schluß dabei, da ich die Erschießungen dieser Personengruppe bestätigen und an das Reichssicherheitshauptamt in Berlin berichten mußte. Die Berichte über die Erschießungen wurden jeweils nach Durchführung schriftlich dem RSHA gemeldet, und zwar unter der Deckbezeichnung, daß »soundso viel Personen gesondert untergebracht« worden seien. Diese ganze Aktion richtete sich hauptsächlich gegen Personen der jüdischen Rasse und wurde »Sonderbehandlung« genannt. Hierzu war vom RSHA bereits zu Beginn des Rußlandfeldzuges ein Befehl herausgegeben worden, der uns Angehörigen der Politischen Abteilung mündlich bekanntgegeben wurde.
[Das Verfahren: Vernehmungsprotokolle der Angeklagten. Der 1. Frankfurter Auschwitz-Prozeß, S. 4534 (vgl. Blatt 946, S. 0)]

Hans
Poster
Posts: 303
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:25 pm

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby Hans » Tue Jul 10, 2018 9:36 am

Denying-History wrote:"Physical impossibilities"

"On 30 October 1941, the SS construction office Auschwitz noted that the planned crematorium 2 will have a cremation rate of 15 min per corpse (Mattogno, I Forni Crematori di Auschwitz, Documentazione, p. 353). (Such a rate would, for example, correspond to simultaneously cremating 2 bodies in 30 min)."

"In a report of SS-Hauptsturmführer Krone from the WVHA of 20 January 1943, it reads that “two oil-fueled cremation furnaces...can dispose of some 100 bodies in a 12-hour period” in the concentration camp Majdanek, i.e. 15 min per corpse (Graf & Mattogno, Concentration Camp Majdanek) (Such a rate would, for example, correspond to simultaneously cremating 2 bodies in 30 min)."

"On 4 February 1944, oven builder Hans Kori wrote to the Majdanek concentration camp that the cremation time of his ovens can be halved to 30 min per corpse by employing multiple cremations (Mattogno, I Forni Crematori di Auschwitz, Documentazione, p. 422)."

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... -part.html

Yeah, not going to say this twice. Nor does it seem you are familiar with Pressac's writings ether if you think he was endorsing that figure considering his own is at 3,250 (Rounded to 3 corpses an hour). However I was saying is that its technically possible to reach 4, and it is.


Just to anticipate this, the term in brackets (cremating 2 bodies in 30 min) shall be understood as technical description of the procedure rather than of the physicochemical process of cremation.

Hans
Poster
Posts: 303
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:25 pm

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby Hans » Tue Jul 10, 2018 9:51 am

Balmoral95 wrote:
Hans wrote:
blake121666 wrote:
Sergey_Romanov wrote:> It looks like you require open air cremations practically EVERY day for the first month. Is this your contention?

I think this has always been the default assumption supported by witness evidence.


I was unaware of this. I was under the impression that the open air cremations were only done when the ovens could not handle the cremation load. You seem to be saying that they were done every day for this Hungarian operation. Now I know your claim better.

So let's just sum up and then drop the issue for me to digest what the claims even are:

1. What were the average and maximum cremation rates for the ovens during this Hungarian action?
2. What were the average and maximum cremation rates for the pits during this Hungarian action?
3. Where was the fuel stockpiled for the pit cremations? The fuel was wood, correct?

I honestly never knew how you squared the numbers. Such is all I'd like to get from this discussion for now.


IMO the crematorium 2 & 3 had to incinerate at a pace of 4000 corpses per day to efficiently exploit the gas chamber capacity. This corresponds to a loading cycle of 2-3 corpses every 30 min.

This leaves some 5500 corpses for crematoria 4 & 5 and the Bunker complex. Assuming the same loading cycle, crematoria 4 & 5 could dispose about 2000 corpses, leaving 3500 for open air cremation. If crematoria 4 & 5 did not achieve these figures (because of less corpses per cycle, slower cycles or because of breakdown), the numbers would shift towards open air cremation, which in the extreme case that the ovens of crematoria 4 & 5 were not used at all would amount to 5500 corpses incinerated per day at the outdoor cremation sites. If crematoria 2 & 3 could not achieve the above mentioned capacity (though I don't know any evidence why this should have been the case), the crematoria 4 & 5 and the Bunker complex had to take care of the excess, too. The more the crematoria could dispose, the less was left to the open cremation sites.

The fuel at the open air cremation sites was wood, brushes, oil, gasoline, fat of the corpses. There was no need for stockpiling huge amounts of wood, if your intention is to challenge this (classic denier argument). There were probably some smaller heaps near the cremation sites that were filled up when consumed. Some wood was brought in with the trains from Hungary, others was chopped in the forests as needed, others might have been purchased from the forestry and transported to the sites as needed (like it was done at Chelmno extermination camp). The Jewish Sonderkommando had 30 "wood unloaders" at crematorium 5 according to German documents. If you are in doubt that crematorium 5 (and the Bunker) received large amounts of wood, I ask you to explain what the 30 "wood unloaders" were doing the whole day. Such a commando only makes sense if you need and continously receive large amounts of wood.


Okay, then are you saying that the open air cremations can match (or better) the daily "output" of the two sidelined Kremas (4 & 5)? If yes, why?


Because of the large cremation area and volume (compensating the lower efficiency compared to the crematoria ovens). We are talking here about at least 5 trenches some 16 - 25 m long, 3 - 6 m wide and 3 m deep. I suggest to consult Roberto's writings on outdoor cremation to check if this volume appears to be sufficient for 3,500 - 5,500 corpses on the peak days as suggested by testimonies, demographics and the considerations above.

User avatar
Darren Wilshak
Regular Poster
Posts: 660
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2012 1:16 pm

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby Darren Wilshak » Tue Jul 10, 2018 10:42 am

Ugh. Never heard of Zyklon B being compared to pixie dust, I know its trivia but how repellent deniers are in the way that they debase themselves in free debate and allow themselves to think when they put shun inducing ideas like that down, all in an attempt to appear to be clever and knowledgable, instead of being possessed of inferior thoughts.

Instead of stupid...

To be fair to Blake though, he did lose the plot under the stress of having to fess up to still not understanding what he professes to be an expert on. EDIT. Or if not an expert, someone who knows their onions.

I always think that given enough solid refutations that sooner or later, the realities will settle in for our brothers and sisters and at the very least these deniers will feel ashamed to be showing themselves as fools when they show up to defend this deranged ideological detritus and feel finally that moment when their tails go between their legs.

Asses!

Mmm., to me the vile pixie dust thing was almost as sick inducing as Gerdes and his choice phraseology before he started to try to become respectable.


Return to “Holocaust Denial”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Balmoral95, montgomery and 5 guests