Denial of the Holocaust and the genocide in Auschwitz

[Hans]

The first is addressed here:
http://www.vho.org/GB/c/CM/lalett.html

He is just explaining the report away. He claims - without evidence - that this cremation rate of 15 minutes per corpse "had to do with a different project, though illusory, by Kurt Prüfer". So what project is this supposed to be? And what evidence is there that it has to do with a different project at all?

What it of course also noteworthy is that the report suggests that two male corpses are incinerated at once in one muffle. If we convert those "two males" into what were actually extermination victims we end up with three corpses of women and children cremated at once - as reported by eyewitnesses.

Mattogno's response to Prufer's statements are here:
http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/anf/Mattogno.html
See Chapter 3, Section 2 for capacity, but the entire work is worthy of a read.

This is about Prüfer's interrogation, but not about the memo he wrote in September 1942 according to which the cremation capacity of the crematorium in the main camp was 250 corpses per day, or 35 min per corpse when related to 24 hours or 30 min per corpse when related to 20 hours. You will notice that this figure by the oven builder - long after they were already in operation - is roughly half the time Mattogno claims.

At the end of all of this, the missing element remains; Where are the ashes of the alleged millions of people cremated? Average male and female is roughly 4 and 6 pounds of ash, respectively. Roughly a shoebox full. So I'd like to skip ahead and know where the millions of shoebox's worth of ashes went, especially considering the food and water supplies weren't contaminated from the alleged human remains.

I don't see a problem. Ash is a fertilizer and only a fraction is actually soluble in water. Most of the ash should be metal oxides that are present in the ground in a similar form anyway.

[The Warden]

He is just explaining the report away. He claims - without evidence - that this cremation rate of 15 minutes per corpse "had to do with a different project, though illusory, by Kurt Prüfer". So what project is this supposed to be? And what evidence is there that it has to do with a different project at all?

Excuse me, but the title of the article is called "An Alternate Interpretation".
Meaning, the claim you posted can be possible, as well as others because the document is inconclusive.
Only an Exaggerationist would find one interpretation as fact when others are more than possible.

What it of course also noteworthy is that the report suggests that two male corpses are incinerated at once in one muffle. If we convert those "two males" into what were actually extermination victims we end up with three corpses of women and children cremated at once - as reported by eyewitnesses.

Why do you insist on ignoring the fact that the heat needed to burn more than one corpse per muffle would need to be greatly increased, thereby wearing on the materials used to build them in the first place? If you're going to burn more than one corpse at a time, you have to have more heat, which will cause more breakdowns and require more down time for repairs or even rebuilding.

This is about Prüfer's interrogation, but not about the memo he wrote in September 1942 according to which the cremation capacity of the crematorium in the main camp was 250 corpses per day, or 35 min per corpse when related to 24 hours or 30 min per corpse when related to 20 hours. You will notice that this figure by the oven builder - long after they were already in operation - is roughly half the time Mattogno claims.

Prufer's claim is based on the idea of multiple corpses being burned at once, addressed above.
Also, the amount of coke needed would increase to fuel the much needed heat, which you've yet to address.
Something being "possible" (amount of corpses burned), and something being proven (evidence of the numbers claimed) is a far stretch. I have yet to see you make the connection.

I don't see a problem. Ash is a fertilizer and only a fraction is actually soluble in water. Most of the ash should be metal oxides that are present in the ground in a similar form anyway.

Then you should have no problem pointing out where the millions of pounds of ash have gone off to.

Where do you claim the ashes are?
Are you implying one hole was dug and the ashes were dumped?
Where is this concentration of "metal oxides" that would be far higher than normal amounts?

Were the ashes dumped into rivers?
If so, where are these mass deposits found since the remains would eventually settle down river?

And what of the water and food supplies being contaminated from such large amounts of human remains being dumped into them?

Essentially, what I'm asking you for the second time is...
Where are the remains of the amounts claimed to have been cremated by the Exaggerationists?

[joachim neander]

1) The body of an average, not totally emaciated, human being has enough chemical energy to even burn without supply from outside. See e.g. the cases of so-called "spontaneous combustion." The Auschwitz crematoria were designed to incinerate bodies not batchwise (as it is done in civilian crematoria), but in a continuous manner. Once heated (by gas from coke), the burning bodies produce enough heat to upheld the burning process. Only a small amount of energy supply is necessary to guarantee continuity and to compensate energy losses.

2) At Auschwitz, not "millions" of bodies were incinerated, but some more than 1 million. Quite a lot of ashes can still today be seen at Birkenau (the so-called "ash ponds"). Huge deposits of human ashes were successfully sifted for gold (from dentures) by the local Polish population immediately after the liberation of Auschwitz. This was, e.g., a matter of heated discussions in the town and parish councils of Oswiecim, because it was considered immoral.

3) Part of the human ashes were dissipated on the fields of the SS model and experimental farms. Not as fertilizer, as Communist propaganda told (and which is still today believed by Revs and non-Revs alike), but as it was a good method to get rid of the ashes without leaving traces.

4) The rest was thrown into the Vistula river, which has enough current to carry the ashes far away and dissipate them. On the other hand, don't forget that human incineration ashes consist mostly of calcium carbonate (the phosphorous content of the bones goes away during incineration), and if the temperature is high enough, even calcium oxide. Both are soluble in water, the first due to the CO2 content of surface waters. Vertebrate animals living in the river take the calcium for their skeletons. So you will not find "ash deposits" in the river sediments.

[jnovitz]

The ash ponds are easily visible on google earth today, but they are not visible on the aerial photos (with possible one exception).




There is some very small quantity of ash and bone fragments there, but it hardly indicative of hundreds of thousands. The bone fragments I collected don't even appeared charred or burnt at all, to be honest.

[Hans]

The ash ponds are easily visible on google earth today, but they are not visible on the aerial photos (with possible one exception).




There is some very small quantity of ash and bone fragments there, but it hardly indicative of hundreds of thousands. The bone fragments I collected don't even appeared charred or burnt at all, to be honest.

Speaking about honesty...you do know very well that according to the testimonies that the remaining ash of the extermination victims was also driven away, and poured into rivers for instance. So the size of ash sites at Auschwitz is not really representative for number of incinerated corpses.

By the way, I suppose you immediately handed those bones fragments over to the Museum staff, yes?

[Hans]

Excuse me, but the title of the article is called "An Alternate Interpretation".
Meaning, the claim you posted can be possible, as well as others because the document is inconclusive.
Only an Exaggerationist would find one interpretation as fact when others are more than possible.

Not so, the "alternate interpretation" refers to the June 23 1943 document. On the other hand, for the Erläuterungsbericht of 30 October 1941 he states it as a fact that

"the Leistung referred to in this document - [cremating] 2 corpses in one muffle in 30 minutes - had to do with a different project, though illusory, by Kurt Prüfer."

But provides no evidence for this claim, other than perhaps implicitly that he considers the figure impossible. But this is exactly the controversial point the discussing is all about.

Why do you insist on ignoring the fact that the heat needed to burn more than one corpse per muffle would need to be greatly increased, thereby wearing on the materials used to build them in the first place? If you're going to burn more than one corpse at a time, you have to have more heat, which will cause more breakdowns and require more down time for repairs or even rebuilding.

The interesting point is that according to that SS report two male corpses can be incinerated once in a single muffle and this statement is from October 1941, before the tripple muffle oven was fully developed. Accordingly, it not unlikely that when Prüfer was designing the oven he had in mind that it should be capable of incinerating a double load at once and took this higher load into account.

Of course, we know that there were breakdowns and down times with the crematoria, so it happened that the strain on the ovens was in fact too high.

Also, the amount of coke needed would increase to fuel the much needed heat, which you've yet to address.

The fuel consumption is a different matter. I understand from Mattogno that the cremation of a single corpse would require something like 20 or 30 kg of coke. However, he ignores that in Auschwitz it was quite different because they overlapped two or three cremation cycles by pushing in fresh corpses every 20 or 30 min. If this is done intelligently, the endothermic phase of one load overlaps with the exothermic phase of another load. The heat required for the endothermic phase of the incineration process is then provided by the corpses which are in the exothermic phase. The total heat balance can be zero and you just need coke to fire up the oven and bring them on temperature. We know from the testimonies that the Sonderkommandos were drilled to operate the ovens like this. Also the low coke consumption (3.5 kg per corpse, if we accept the figure from Erläuterungsbericht of 30 October 1941 and of June 23 1943 letter) can hardly be explained else. But there is also direct evidence from a Topf patent application of November 1942 for this coke saving operation of the ovens:

In the gathering camps in the occupied territories in the East with their high mortality rate, as they are affected by the war and its consequences, it has become impossible to bury the great number of deceased inmates. This is the result of both the lack of space and personnel and the immediate and longterm danger to that immediate and farther surroundings that is caused by the burial of the dead who often succumbed to infectious diseases.

Therefore there is a need to quickly, safely and hygienically dispose of the constantly great number of corpses. In that process it will, of course, be impossible, to operate according to the legal stipulations that are valid in the territory of the Reich. Thus it will be impossible to reduce to ashes only one corpse at a time, and the process cannot be done without extra heating. Instead it will be necessary to incinerate continuously and simultaneously many corpses, and during the duration of the incineration the flames and the gasses of the fire will have to engage the corpses to be incinerated directly. It will be impossible to separate the ashes of the simultaneously incinerated, and the ashes can only be handled together. Therefore one should not really talk in the depicted disposition of corpses of "incineration," but it really concerned here corpse burning.

To realize such corpse burning--following the principles sketched above--a number of multi-muffle ovens were installed in some of those camps, which according to their design are loaded and operated periodically. Because of this these ovens do not fully satisfy, because the burning does not proceed quickly enough to dispose off in the shortest possible time the great number of corpses that are constantly presented.

http://hdot.org/en/trial/defense/van/ix

The reference to the "multi-muffle ovens to realize such corpse burning" can only refer to Auschwitz and Mogilev.

Where are the remains of the amounts claimed to have been cremated by the Exaggerationists?

They were buried or thrown into rivers. I trust that the Germans were clever enough that they did this evenly and did not put too much ash at a single place to overfertilize it. If not, there may have been some environmental problems, but then so what? After those more than 65 years the soil should have regenerated.

[SevenUp]

The heat required for the endothermic phase of the incineration process is then provided by the corpses which are in the exothermic phase. The total heat balance can be zero and you just need coke to fire up the oven and bring them on temperature. We know from the testimonies that the Sonderkommandos were drilled to operate the ovens like this.

Thanks for clearing this up. The Sonderkommandos made major advances in cremation science, that haven't been applied outside Auschwitz to this day. This ranks right up there with the discovery that women's bodies burn easily and can be used as kindling for cremation, and that blood itself can be used as cremation fuel. These discoveries were made at Treblinka - Jewish historian Rachael Auerbach documents...

"In Treblinka, as in other such places, significant advances were made in the science of annihilation, such as the highly original discovery that the bodies of women burned better than those of men.

"'Men won't burn without women.' [...] [T]he bodies of women were used to kindle, or, more accurately put, to build the fires among the piles of corpses [...] Blood, too, was found to be first-class combustion material. [...] Young corpses burn up quicker than old ones. [...] [W]ith the help of gasoline and the bodies of the fatter females, the pile of corpses finally burst into flames."(83)

[Hans]

Thanks for clearing this up. The Sonderkommandos made major advances in cremation science, that haven't been applied outside Auschwitz to this day.

Just because of legal and ethic limitations. Modern crematories still need to separate the ash, so this kind of continuous cremation as in Auschwitz will never be done at least officially.

This ranks right up there with the discovery that women's bodies burn easily and can be used as kindling for cremation,

What is true, is that women contain more body fat, so ideally they were cremated as a load with low fat corpses to compensate their lesser fat content.

[SevenUp]

Thanks for clearing this up. The Sonderkommandos made major advances in cremation science, that haven't been applied outside Auschwitz to this day.

Just because of legal and ethic limitations. Modern crematories still need to separate the ash, so this kind of continuous cremation as in Auschwitz will never be done at least officially.

This ranks right up there with the discovery that women's bodies burn easily and can be used as kindling for cremation,

What is true, is that women contain more body fat, so ideally they were cremated as a load with low fat corpses to compensate their lesser fat content.

Perhaps then you should produce some documentation other than reports from Sonderkommandos and Jewish historians.

[ps]

In the gas chambers at Auschwitz Birkenau crematoria II and III were the killing times of all witnesses in the area of "immediately", "testifies the moment" to a maximum of 20 minutes. Furthermore, it was proved by the use of wire mesh columns. This results in subsequent mandatory gas chamber temperatures, which are also minimum temperatures! Taking into account additional physical circumstances must the gas chamber temperatures have been even higher.



Formulas and explanation in the German forum:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5996&p=43261#p43261

Under these circumstances it is pointless to deny the gas chambers using Zyklon B into the gas chambers at Auschwitz Birkenau yet.

Instead, one should make only the temperature conditions in the gas chambers and spread on!

The temperature results are based solely on evidence accepted!

Holocaust-Deniers

Holocaust-deniers reject that these columns even existed. The convergence of this evidence, including the compelling testimonies giving details before corroborating documentary evidence was unearthed, is ignored.

Kula's and Tauber's depositions describing the "wire-mesh insertion devices," decades before the corroborating documentary evidence was discovered in the archives, cannot be explained away. Houstek/Erber's description of the same devices, also before that evidence was discovered, is also a powerful corroboration.

Deniers will likely argue that the minor differences in their descriptions mean we should ignore them. But should we really expect to find identical accounts? The prisoners gave their descriptions months after the fact; the perpetrator, 35 years later. That may account for some of the difference. Just as importantly, we do not know if the Nazis in charge of the gassing operation tried slightly different types of equipment from time to time.

Indeed, if all three descriptions were exactly alike, we might suspect that the later account was copied from the earlier ones. Because they are not, we know that here are three separate eyewitnesses to these items.

Holocaust-deniers reject the validity of the aerial photographs, claiming that the four dark spots on the roof of each gas chamber were retouchings added by the CIA or some other conspiracy. John Ball, who has no expertise in interpreting aerial photographs, suggests either that hypothesis or, alternatively, that the dark spots were flowerpots sitting on each gas chamber.

The objects shown on the roof in the ground photo, say some deniers, are ordinary boxes of construction material.

Deniers also claim that there is no evidence of four holes in the roof of each gas chamber. Because the chambers were dynamited in an attempt to hide evidence of mass murder from the approaching Soviet army, the roofs have collapsed and it is difficult to tell in the rubble what is a hole and what is not. Later this year, an essay on this website will address this question in detail.

Finally, Holocaust-deniers intentionally confuse the solid support columns for the gas chamber roof with the wire-mesh columns. As obvious evidence of their crimes, the latter would have been removed by the Nazis from the gas chambers before they were blown up. Ludicrously, deniers show photos of the solid columns as proof that the wire-mesh columns never existed.

Such feeble attempts to rewrite history do not stand.
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... o-columns/

Video of the Kula-columns:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3EeTFtY ... r_embedded

[David Baker]

Here's an interesting development:

A website in which I posted some revisionist information has suddenly been shut down. The name of this website was "The First Light Forum", a polemic Christian's soap box for condemning Jews as the murderers of Christ. My few attempts to steer the conversation toward Holocaust revisionism (along with tidbits about recent, untold activities of our Jewish cousins..) were thwarted, as the website's author refused to allow any mention of said topic. I was removed from the roster of approved forum guests. However, a list of names of gassed Jews was eventually furnished by one contributor, who apparently had become weary of my demands that such data be provided. Most prominently listed was the name "Hana Brady" who, as indicated by the attendant Cause of Death column, died in a Gas Chamber at Auschwitz. Her brother survived the experience, and is now in his 70s. What can be derived from such offerings are manifold; First, who knew Hana Brady at Auschwitz besides her brother? Who saw her being gassed? What record of this gassing is available for examination? Is there an autopsy which confirms the gassing of this young girl? I would venture to guess that we've received the bulk of this data, and that no further discussion will be forthcoming on the subject of Ms Brady. As I have noted before, these people really believe we are REQUIRED to acknowledge such preliminary information without question. Ladies and gentlemen, THAT IS THE 'HOLOCAUST' IN IT'S ENTIRETY!

[The Warden]

@ the responses to cremation times and ashes:

What a bunch of nonsense. The only physical evidence that might prove the numbers claimed by the Exaggerationists is miraculously unattainable. These excuses that the deposits would've been absorbed into the soil or taken down river (although I haven't seen one iota of evidence to show the dumping of ashes into a river) are ludicrous. If a group is going to have a "secret extermination program", why would they cart the amounts of ashes out of the camps in the first place? They would dig a hole and dump the ashes in lickety split. Yet, the Exaggerationists claim they carted the ashes to the rivers where anyone and everyone could view them, but not one photo exists of such an event. Let's also keep in mind that the amounts claimed can never be proven by showing a small amount of ashes as cremations were a part of normal everyday life in the camps. Ash pools? I have some reading to do if someone would please link me to information on these, but I still fail to see the amounts claimed matching the area needed for disposal. Might as well claim aliens came down and removed the ashes.

If the cremations didn't need more heat for multiple burns (I suppose we're taking the word of the poster now?), anyone who has ever had a large group of people over on a holiday can tell you it takes a lot longer to cook two roasts in the oven than one. Bodies are no different. Either multiple burns need more heat to match the times claimed by Prufer (and only Prufer), or they need more time. You can't walk on both sides of the street.

[joachim neander]

@ the responses to cremation times and ashes:

What a bunch of nonsense. The only physical evidence that might prove the numbers claimed by the Exaggerationists is miraculously unattainable. These excuses that the deposits would've been absorbed into the soil or taken down river (although I haven't seen one iota of evidence to show the dumping of ashes into a river) are ludicrous. If a group is going to have a "secret extermination program", why would they cart the amounts of ashes out of the camps in the first place? They would dig a hole and dump the ashes in lickety split. Yet, the Exaggerationists claim they carted the ashes to the rivers where anyone and everyone could view them, but not one photo exists of such an event. ...

Please have a look at a map of the Interessengebiet Auschwitz: the area confiscated around the camps of Auschwitz I and II from which the indigenous Polish population was expelled. The Interessengebiet had a surface of about 40 square kilometers, its frontier was guarded by SS and police posts, and it could only be entered with a special permit. The map is shown in every reference work about Auschwitz and should also appear by googling. There you will see:

1) The left bank of the Vistula river (in German: Weichsel, in Polish: Wisla) and the right bank of the Sola river marked the western, northern and eastern boundaries of the Interessengebiet. The distance from the Birkenau crematoria to the banks of the Vistula was about 1,000 meters, from the old crematorium (Au I) to the Sola is less than 30 meters. So there was no problem to dump the ashes into the rivers. As I already mentioned, the currents would easily carry away the ashes and dilute them.

2) The major part of the Interessengebiet was used for agricultural purposes by the SS. Even if we - for a "worst case" calculation - assume for a moment that only half of the Interessengebiet was cultivated, and if we assume that all the ashes from 1,000,000 people (ca. 6,000,000 kg) were scattered on it, we would have had 300 grams of ashes per square meter. In reality, it could not have been more than 100 g per square meter, a negligible amount which in a short time was absorbed by the vegetation.

3) Who should make a photograph of ash-dumping into the river? For what purpose? And even if someone would have done it (such as the prisoner who took the pictures of open-air corpse burning at Birkenau) - would it not be suspect of forgery?

[Kobus]

1) The body of an average, not totally emaciated, human being has enough chemical energy to even burn without supply from outside. See e.g. the cases of so-called "spontaneous combustion." .

Please mr. Neander, could your give some more information on this wonderful phenomenon of 'spontaneous combustion', and tell of some cases that you think are believable.
http://www.skepdic.com/shc.html

[joachim neander]

ps said:

Herr Neander, stimmen Sie meinen Ausführungen zu und können wir gemeinsam ein Kommunique verfassen, in welchem dieser endgültige Beweis der Welt bekannt gemacht werden kann?

Sorry, I cannot follow your temperature-based calculations. Maybe you're right, maybe not, I cannot decide on it. I'm afraid, however, that there is an error in them. Otherwise I could not explain myself why the producers of Zyklon-B issued serious warnings about self-poisoning for those who had to handle the product at room temperature.