Chelmno book released

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
Toshiro
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 142
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 1:36 pm

Re: Chelmno book released

Postby Toshiro » 7 years 11 months ago (Sun Jan 08, 2012 11:06 am)

SKcz wrote:Can someone provide me with more information regarding this quote?

Estimating that it should only take about 44 pounds (22 kilograms) of wood to cremate the average body

http://www.treehugger.com/clean-technol ... india.html


"estimating", "should" - so this actually never happened and they speak only theoretically? For me it sounds impossible to cremate average body with 22kg of wood. Average body (cca 75kg since we are talking about normal nourished adults and not children) 22 / 75 = 0,29kg of wood per kilogram? This sound impossible to me.

That's correct; it never happened and the author speaks theoretically (he uses 150 kg in reality). In other words, he is full of it.

I also think your average weight is more plausible than Mattogno's or Roberto's.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9919
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: Chelmno book released

Postby Hannover » 7 years 11 months ago (Sun Jan 08, 2012 3:49 pm)

SKcz:
I challenge anybody to provide me with proof that 0,3kg of wood is enough to cremate 1kg of flesh and bones.

I challenge anybody to provide me with sources and proofs, from where they brought the needed wood for cremation of alleged number of victims of camp Chelmno.

I challenge anybody to provide me with proofs of existence of mass graves which contain/contained alleged number of buried bodies/ashes/bones of alleged victims, I would like to see excavations, I want to see photos, videos, documented human remains and graves and witnesses to these excavations.

I like the directness of your approach, reminds me of someone I know. I see no reason to mince words when challenging those who support a destructive, racist, and violent religion, aka: 'The Holocau$t'.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

SKcz
Member
Member
Posts: 107
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 10:17 am

Re: Chelmno book released

Postby SKcz » 7 years 11 months ago (Sun Jan 08, 2012 4:35 pm)

Toshiro wrote:That's correct; it never happened and the author speaks theoretically (he uses 150 kg in reality). In other words, he is full of it.


I thought it, classic.

Hannover wrote:I like the directness of your approach, reminds me of someone I know. I see no reason to mince words when challenging those who support a destructive, racist, and violent religion, aka: 'The Holocau$t'.

- Hannover


I spent some time with discussion with believers and was shocked how little they know about holocaust, they know only basic things like "jews were gassed" no details which could force peoples to think about how it was possible, they presented absolutely absurd claims and "proofs" (the honest ones agreed tha don´t know any proofs but still believe) and since my country have law against disputing or denying holocaust I couldn´t made such a challenges. Even without them the discussion ended soon even without any revisionist argument. I spent lot of time with reading forum like codoh, rodoh, sceptic forum and etc. and the discussions with believers are always the same, so looong and boring so I decided to use direct challenges instead of endless discussions (Do you have proof? No? End of discussion) red color only for to be sure that some believer will not miss it. This is also great place to make challenges since no dodging allowed, I like direct approach too, time is precious.

I apologize for little off-topic

SKcz

Toshiro
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 142
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 1:36 pm

Re: Chelmno book released

Postby Toshiro » 7 years 10 months ago (Thu Jan 19, 2012 11:29 am)

I have contacted the author of the Guidelines for the Surveillance and Control of Anthrax in Humans and Animals, an expert on anthrax, whether spores of anthrax can survive in an incompletely cremated carcass, i.e., one where the the flesh is carbonized, but not reduced to ash. This is his reply:

The spores cannot survive very long above temperatures of 90 C. The issues that have caused debate over time are whether they can escape before being subjected to that temperature in, for example, the smoke, or buried deep in flesh that does not get burnt. In my view, the more likely residual problems lie with spores that have spread out of reach of the heat either laterlly or downwards, thereby leaving the environment contaminated even though the carcass was effectively incinerated.

So the bigger issue is whether the spores escape with the smoke, not whether they are buried deep in the flesh that does not get burnt. Carbonized flesh is as burnt as it gets. Throw a steak on fire and burn it until it gets black as coal and shrinks to half its size. Like I said, destroy the flesh, and the infectious agent is destroyed. The spores can't survive the heat of even 90°C, much less the heat generated in a pit cremation after several hours. So Mattogno is correct in that it would have sufficed to render the meat harmless, i.e., carbonize it. Again, I don't see how an open pit cremation could provide as much air circulation and contain as much heat as a closed industrial incinerator. It's simply stupid.

I have also contacted Matthews Cremation services regarding the combustibility of human corpses. Their reply:

The human body is comprised of 85% moisture content, 10% combustible material and 5% non combustible. The body represents 453 BTU per kg. The body is classified as Type 4 waste.

Wood is 85% combustible material, 10% moisture content and 5% non combustible with 3,855 BTU per kg. Wood is classified as Type 0 waste.

When an crematory operator evaluates the size of the body being cremated, they study carefully the impact of the amount of body fat because the BTU value rises substantially. For reference, 45kg of body fat = 46 liters of Kerosene which is 8391 BTU per kg. This represents nearly 19x more energy value when a body contains that much additional weight because of body fat. Just imagine placing 46 liters of kerosene into a hot cremation chamber running at 780 degrees Celsius.

I have to note that the author has weight units mixed up here; when he is talking about BTU/kg, he actually means BTU/lb. So the numbers we get out of this after conversion are:

1. Fresh corpse: 251.835 kCal/kg = 998.694 BTU/kg

However, in the table of classification of wastes, we see that for Type 4 waste (Human and animal remains consisting of carcasses, organs and solid tissue wastes from farms, laboratories and animal pounds) the BTU/lb is 1,000, or:

Fresh corpse: 555.927 kCal/kg = 2,204.622 BTU/kg

The average between the two being:

403.881 kCal/kg = 1,601.657 BTU/kg

2. Fat: 4,664.786 kCal/kg = 18,498.988 BTU/kg

However, in the Methods for Disposal of Poultry Carcasses, page 9, we read that animal fat has a BTU/lb of 17,000, or:

9,450.764 kCal/kg = 37,478.584 BTU/kg

The average between the two being:

7,057.775 kCal/kg = 27,988.784 BTU/kg

3. Wood: 2,143.099 kCal/kg = 8,498.82 BTU/kg

However, according to the table of classification of wastes above, Type 0:

4,725.381 kCal/kg = 18,739.29 BTU/kg

The average between the two being:

3,434.24 kCal/kg = 13,619.051 BTU/kg

So while Mattogno's or Roberto's numbers look okay on paper, the cremation experts (read: reality) disagree completely. The heating value of a fresh corpse per kilogram is not 1,525.16 kCal/kg, but a mere 403.881 kCal/kg. And if the heating value of a decomposed corpse is around 300% higher (5,339.08 kCal/kg according to Roberto), then the actual heating value would be 1,211.643 kCal/kg for a decomposed corpse. It's not a simple calculation of water/protein/fat composition that can tell us the heating value. This is one grave mistake both Mattogno and Roberto made. The cremation expert wrote a human body is comprised of 85% moisture content, 10% combustible material and 5% non-combustible material. This does obviously not mean a human body is comprised of 85% water, but that 85% of it is moist and therefore does not burn as well.

What's more, fat alone is comprised of 25% water, and this water is part of the 64% of water in a human body, therefore if any fat is left in the corpse, so is water. If 5,04 kg of fat is left, so is 1,26 kg of water. That's why saying all the water evaporated out of the corpses is wrong. Not only that, but snow, rain, groundwater and the humidity overall would keep the corpses moist to a certain degree. There would have been at least a kilogram or more of water (excluding the water in fat) in the corpses.

Again, on one hand the Jews were supposedly underweight, on the other, fat women were used as kindling. If they weren't "fat" as Roberto argues, but merely appeared to "contain some fat," that makes them "average" or "chubby" at best. An "average" person does not contain enough fat to burst into flames like we are supposed to believe. Either they used obese corpses as fuel or not. If they did, then the other corpses obviously weren't emaciated. If they didn't, then they obviously needed far more wood.

Clem
Member
Member
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 12:23 am

Re: Chelmno book released

Postby Clem » 7 years 10 months ago (Tue Feb 07, 2012 1:14 pm)

Roberto Muehlenkamp:

the graves can be shown and have been shown



Werd:

So Roberto says the graves ARE there and HAVE been shown. He gives names but no specific links on this certain post. I can't help but wonder if he already has given them elsewhere. he certainly is a man of links.



He is also most certainly a man of lies and delusions.


However, Roberto has made the following claim:

So I'll be posting 45 proofs on Shermer's forum on the 15th of each month, starting with Chelmno mass grave "# 1/34" on 15 February 2012.



http://revisionistworkshop.com/forum/vi ... 6&start=10


Interestingly, Roberto has already made the following admission about Chelmno’s alleged “huge mass grave” # 1/34:

To be sure, the archaeologist doesn't mention finds of human remains. But this need not mean that none were found... A reasonable assumption is that the archaeologist considered other finds in this grave more interesting and worthier of mention… archaeologists are not crazy about human remains. Objects belonging to the victims interest them much more.


Did I mention that Roberto is a man of lies and delusions?

You can see other answers / lies that roberto has given to Chelmno questions here:

http://revisionistworkshop.com/forum/vi ... 0&start=50

Among other claims, he alleges to have photos of all the alleged mass graves at Chelmno.

I can't wait until the 15th.

Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1093
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Chelmno book released

Postby Werd » 7 years 10 months ago (Tue Feb 07, 2012 2:35 pm)

To be sure, the archaeologist doesn't mention finds of human remains. But this need not mean that none were found.

Some call this an excuse. I call it an argument from ignorance.

A reasonable assumption is that the archaeologist considered other finds in this grave more interesting and worthier of mention… archaeologists are not crazy about human remains. Objects belonging to the victims interest them much more.

While archaeologists are interested in artifacts, they are also not going to ignore a skeleton or two if they find them at some random site they are digging at. The same thus applies to Teblinka or any other place. Quit making excuses for the current lack of bodies.

Toshiro
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 142
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 1:36 pm

Re: Chelmno book released

Postby Toshiro » 7 years 9 months ago (Tue Feb 14, 2012 3:13 pm)

A belated response to Roberto:

Roberto wrote:[Toshiro] forgot to ask his experts for a calculation showing how they arrived at what they consider a corpse's calorific value to be in the absence of high fat content

I have asked, but they never replied back. I would have called, but am not from America. I suppose it's that low due to the 85% moisture content. So even if the body contains only 60-70% water, 85% of it is considered moist.

Roberto wrote:This remark of Toshiro's:
What's more, fat alone is comprised of 25% water, and this water is part of the 64% of water in a human body, therefore if any fat is left in the corpse, so is water. If 5,04 kg of fat is left, so is 1,26 kg of water. That's why saying all the water evaporated out of the corpses is wrong. Not only that, but snow, rain, groundwater and the humidity overall would keep the corpses moist to a certain degree. There would have been at least a kilogram or more of water (excluding the water in fat) in the corpses.

is not exactly the brightest of his utterances, if one considers, say, MGK's breakdown of what a human body consists of:
Assuming that the human body consists on average of 64% water, 14% fat and 15.3% proteins,405 a corpse of 60 kg contains 34.80 kg of water, 8.40 kg of fat, and 9.18 kg of proteins.

The 14 % fat that MGK consider in their heat balance calculations is obviously fat minus the fat's water content included in the 64 % water.

The point stands. Fat is made of 25% water. If fat is left, so is water. Of the 64% water and 14% fat, or 38,40 kg water and 8,40 kg fat; 5,47% or 2,1 kg of it is due to the fat content.

Roberto wrote:As to Toshiro's claim that "if 5,04 kg of fat is left, so is 1,26 kg of water", how does he know? Dehydration might as well turn fat into a drier (and thus more combustible) substance with a more grease-like consistence.

Maybe, maybe not.

Roberto wrote:And of course nobody said that "all the water evaporated out of the corpses". Rather then set up straw-men, Toshiro should read what I wrote about the assumed degree of dehydration among the corpses extracted from mass graves for cremation and what my assumptions are based on.

There is zero water in your calculation.

Roberto wrote:Who is supposed to have said that the corpses at the bottom of the pyre "burst into flames"?

Not necessarily corpses at the bottom, or even fat corpses, but children, according to Eliahu Rosenberg: "All it takes is a match to light them."

Anyway, I have discovered an article called "Ueber Leichenverbrennung und Friedhöfe" by Dr. Ferdinand Fischer, in Dingler's Polytechnisches Journal from 1874, issue 214, pages 382-392:
Die Leiche eines Erwachsenen im Gewichte von 70 Kilogrm. besteht nach dieser Zusammenstellung annähernd aus:
41,0 Kilogrm. Feuchtigkeit,
6,3 „ Mineralbestandtheilen (Asche),
22,7 „ brennbarer organischer Masse
und darin 7 Kilogrm. Protëin und 14 Kilogrm. Fettstoffe.
Fleck 7) berechnet hieraus, daß bei der Verbrennung dieser organischen Stoffe 65760 Wärmeeinheiten frei werden, welche also hinreichen müßten, die 41 Kilogrm. Wasser zu verdampfen. Der hohe Wassergehalt würde die Verbrennungstemperatur aber so sehr erniedrigen, daß an ein Weiterbrennen der etwa angezündeten Leiche nicht zu denken ist.8) Selbst wenn getrocknetes Muskelfleisch an einer Flamme angezündet wird, so brennt nur das Fett, nicht aber die Protëinsubstanz fort; diese überzieht sich mit einer dichten, glänzenden Kohle, welche nur sehr schwer verbrannt werden kann.

Emphasis mine.

65,760 kCal heating value for 7 kg of protein and 14 kg of fat; quite lower than your calculations. You'll notice the heating value per kilogram will be much closer to my estimate of 403.881 kCal/kg and a cremation expert's of 251.835 kCal/kg than yours of 1,525.16 kCal/kg. You'll also notice the part in bold from the article, where it clearly states dry tissue will not burn on its own; whereas you want us to believe decomposed corpses have the same heating value as coal - twice as much as wood. Nonsense.

Attached are the relevant pages of the article (384-385).

00000408.tif.large.jpg

00000409.tif.large.jpg
Last edited by Toshiro on Wed Feb 15, 2012 5:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

SKcz
Member
Member
Posts: 107
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 10:17 am

Re: Chelmno book released

Postby SKcz » 7 years 9 months ago (Tue Feb 14, 2012 4:31 pm)

I clicked on Toshiro´s link and see that Mr. Muehlenkamp adress comments from this forum, mine included. I don´t understand why somebody spend time with discussion with this person when his comments are consisted from ad homines and not from arguments, no wonder that he don´t write his comments here on this forum. But his explanation is propably "censorship", I only guess...

Toshiro
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 142
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 1:36 pm

Re: Chelmno book released

Postby Toshiro » 7 years 9 months ago (Wed Feb 15, 2012 11:05 am)

Reply by Roberto:

Roberto wrote:Do they have an e-mail address? I might want to ask them myself.

http://www.matthewscremation.com/about/contact-us.aspx

Roberto wrote:Which seems to be included in the 64 % water content already, otherwise the water percentage would be higher.

Yes, it is.

Roberto wrote:Not necessarily.

I'll be convinced if you have a source where it says all the water in fat evaporates and the fat forms into a greasier substance over time.

Roberto wrote:I don't understand. If 5.47 % of the water is due to the water in the fat, that doesn't change the fact that the body consists of 64 % water (including the water in the fat) and 14 % fat (excluding the water included in the 64 %).

No, it doesn't. It means 5,47% of water of the total of 64% is due to the fat of a person. So if a body has 8,4 kg of fat, there will be 2,1 kg of water due to the fat.

Roberto wrote:Rather likely, actually. And Toshiro obviously can't rule it out. Another interesting aspect is that fat doesn't necessarily seep into the soil like water. When it breaks down during the decomposition process, the result is flammable fatty acids like butyric acid, which give the corpse/carcass a cheesy smell during the phase known as butyric fermentation.

Butyric acid has a lower heating value than fat itself. Also, what percentage of fat breaks down to butyric acid? What about the remainder?

Roberto wrote:Toshiro is not a very attentive reader. From my blog Mattogno on Chełmno Cremation (Part 2):

My bad.

Roberto wrote:The worst thing this would mean is that Rosenberg, a traumatized eyewitness, exaggerated a bit. Like those eyewitnesses of the Dresden bombing mentioned in Bergander's book, who thought they saw phosphorous raining from the sky and fighter planes massacring refugees at night among the smoke and flames from the bombing.

Of course he was exaggerating, and I was exaggerating when I said they "burst into flames." What I meant was how easily they supposedly burned, almost like straw--like they are the fuel itself--which just didn't happen.

Roberto wrote:Which means one has to burn the body in a manner that keeps this charcoal patina from forming on the dry muscle substance and hindering its combustion. Ettling doesn't seem to have had any problems with such combustion-hindering charcoal formation:
One of the experimental carcasses burned rather incompletely whereas the other was mostly consumed by fire. The reason for the difference was that the latter carcass "was still suspended on the seat springs with a lot of char and ash underneath. The fat being rendered from the carcass dripped onto the char which acted like a candle wick and kept the fat burning." This burning rendered more fat, which in turn kept alive the fire consuming the carcass. Ettling concluded that a carcass, and presumably also a human body, "can be rather thoroughly consumed by fire from its own fat", a necessary condition being that "the body be suspended in such a way that it is over the fire which is fed from the body fat"..

Yes, one needs to use extra fuel to burn a body (wood, coal, fat), because a body will not burn on its own (hint: Auschwitz).

Roberto wrote:Assuming that Wärmeeinheiten means kCal, that may be so. My calculations are based on those of MGK, by the way.

It does. MGK are wrong. I already expressed this to Hannover in a private message hoping he would forward my message to them.

Roberto wrote:If so, one would have to use the lower value as a baseline for calculating the effect of water and fat loss on external fuel requirements. Shouldn't make much of a difference for these calculations whether one considers 0.56 kg of per kg of corpse the amount required to cremate (or at least completely carbonize) a human being with a heating value of 403.881 kCal/kg or a human being with a heating value of 1,525.16 kCal/kg, provided that one knows how the lower value is made up. Does this German text give separate WE values for water, protein and fat, by the way? If so, I might do calculations on that basis.

My question is (as we both agree the corpses would have been mostly carbonized and not cremated, the cremations lasting only five hours, and the remains later had to be pulverized), if the Nazis wanted to get rid of all the evidence, then why did they not go for complete overkill with the wood and completely cremate the bodies? Why did they choose to use minimum amounts of wood, even though they were surrounded by a forest, only to partially cremate the bodies, leaving hundreds of thousands of pieces of tissue, bone and teeth behind? Oh, wait; there are no hundreds of thousands of pieces of bone and teeth. You can't say they completely pulverized over 700,000 people at Treblinka, since there are supposedly photos of bone fragments from the sixties and claims that there are still bone fragments lying about, as in Sobibor, especially during rain. The earth should be filled with these remains, unless they went for overkill and completely cremated the remains, which they didn't. So where are the massive amounts of remains?
And no, it does not separate the values.

Roberto wrote:Actually it states that dry muscle tissue will not burn on his own, but I wouldn't expect the 7 kg of protein included in the 22.7 kg of combustible organic mass to consist only of muscle tissue (unless, of course, the body has no bones and skin).

I don't think skin is any more flammable than dry muscle tissue. Bones even less so. Leather, although it will burn, does not burn well and will not burn on its own.

Roberto wrote:a) My calculations are sound with the distribution of body substances and corresponding heating values considered by Mattogno,

MGK are wrong.

Roberto wrote:b) I didn't state that a dehydrated corpse will burn on its own (though of course I expect it to require much less external fuel to burn than a corpse in its fresh state), and

Then what about the argument that the Nazis supposedly used corpses as fuel? Supposedly they burned so well, they didn't need any extra kerosene or wood. Only 3,5 kg of coke was needed to cremate a body at Auschwitz.

Roberto wrote:c) Toshiro's own source doesn't contradict my reasoning (though the kCal/kg value may be lower if one consider the source's values), but just mentions a problem (the creation of a charcoal patina) that might keep muscle tissue from burning as well as corresponds to its calorific value. To what extent this patina forms and hinders cremation seems to depend on the method adopted, as mentioned above.

Not your reasoning per se, but your (and MGK's) calculation. A corpses calorific value is much lower as confirmed by this article, the table of classification of wastes and the value given by the cremation expert.

Roberto wrote:Thanks for the attention, but I "do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post". Toshiro is thus kindly requested to send the attachments to my e-mail address: [email removed].

http://digital.slub-dresden.de/fileadmi ... .large.jpg
http://digital.slub-dresden.de/fileadmi ... .large.jpg
A digital version of the article is available here: http://dingler.culture.hu-berlin.de/art ... 4/ar214099

Toshiro
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 142
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 1:36 pm

Re: Chelmno book released

Postby Toshiro » 7 years 9 months ago (Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:47 pm)

Reply from Roberto:

Roberto wrote:Who said the water evaporates? My take is that the water seeps into the soil more easily than the less liquid substances. There is a phase of the decomposition process, known as black putrefaction, during which a large volume of body fluids drain from the body and seep into the surrounding soil

I'm talking about the water in fat, i.e., the fat itself.

Roberto wrote:So you're saying that the water contained in the 14 % fat is also included in the 64 % water?

How do you know?

I'm saying the water content of fat is accounted in the overall water content of a body. The fat content is minus its water content.

I know because the water content of a body consists of all the water in a body; wherever it came from. This water comes from blood, fat and other fluids. Do you think it's only comprised of water from blood and other fluids, but the water in fat is ignored?

Roberto wrote:Maybe so, but my point is that the calorific value of fat is not completely lost when fat breaks down into fatty acids.

I know it's not, but it is reduced.

Roberto wrote:Don't know. Must be quite a lot for the body to smell like cheese and for the corresponding phase to be called butyric fermentation.

Perhaps, yes. Does this acid also seep into the soil, evaporate and whatnot?

Roberto wrote:I didn't say no extra fuel was needed. In Ettling's experiment some extra fuel (that which started the fire) was also present. The point is that, in certain situations, a carcass's or corpse's fat can provide most of the fuel needed for its combustion.

But remember, we are talking about emaciated corpses. Are you saying these skin-and-bones corpses had enough fat on them to successfully cremate themselves?

Roberto wrote:Even if that had been the most incomprehensibly stupid thing to do, the question would still be rather pointless as evidence shows that what the Nazis did was carbonizing and then crushing the remains instead of completely combusting them. But if the Nazis had gone for the "complete overkill", they might have run into large logistical problems, though not necessarily on the scale dreamed up by MGK. Even with the comparatively low amounts of wood that I considered, the only camp that was probably self-sufficient (in that it could obtain all the wood needed for cremation with its own inmate woodcutter force) was Sobibór. All other camps depended on at least a considerable part of the wood being brought in from outside. Forest superintendent Heinrich May wrote that he eventually had to "cut down all the trees in some of the forest districts" in order to meet the demands of Chełmno extermination camp. Besides, was it necessarily the Nazis' goal to completely erase all the evidence? They may have been content with destroying the physical evidence so thoroughly that it would be impossible or very difficult to assess the scale of the killing on hand of physical remains found on site, if they were found. Buried in the ground and with vegetation planted on top, they might not have been found but for the robbery diggers who opened the soil at each extermination camp in search of valuables, after the supervisor left behind by the SS had fled from the advancing Soviets.

From the linked Heinrich May's report:
The vehicle in the ditch was about four meters long and two meters high; the rear was closed with an iron bar and padlocked. A peculiar, unpleasant smell was coming from the van and the men.
[...]
A nasty odor, like the one I first detected by the truck stuck in the ditch, filled the air. As I learned much later it was an anti-typhoid agent.

I don't understand. What was this odour? Is he suggesting people were being gassed in the van with Zyklon-B?

I saw a grave about 200 meters long (650 feet) and five meters wide (16 feet). The grave was covered with earth that was about two meters high (6.5 feet). A bit further on I saw another grave 50 meters long (164 feet). In the neighboring clearing there was one more grave about 150 meters long (492 feet). About three-quarters of the length of the grave was covered up. From my side it was still open. I did not have enough courage to go there and look into it. Soon after, an enclosed truck appeared, which was moving backwards and then stopped right in front of the open part of the grave. The gendarme opened the van and I saw a pile of naked bodies. I was standing about 80 meters (262 feet) from the van. A group of half-naked forced laborers, supervised by one of the gendarmes, hurried to throw the corpses into the grave. Bothmann told me that the bodies had to be positioned precisely; otherwise not enough of them would fit into the grave. Parallel to the grave, a motorized excavator with a conveyor belt was digging another grave. The conveyor belt was also used to cover up the graves.

Is he serious? A 200 meter long mass grave with 2 meters of earth over it and next to it a 50 meter and a 150 meter long mass grave, and another one being dug?

Bothmann told me about 250,000 people who had been buried there and another 100,000 would be buried soon.

250,000 buried and another 100,000 to go?

The process went like this: the victims were divided according to their gender and led to some room where they were told to undress before taking a bath. Having taken off their clothes, they were rushed into a small room lit with a small light bulb. In the room they were crowded together tightly. Then the door was locked and the light was switched off. The small building was nothing else but a specially designed gas van. In the vehicle there were cylinders with carbon monoxide, which after opening the vent, filled the inside of the van.

How could they mistake a van for a room?

An old woman and her daughter wanted to commit suicide. She asked for a noose. Bothmann threw her a bra. The daughter lay on the ground and the mother put the loop around her neck. When the mother tightened the loop, the daughter started screaming out of fear.

How do you hang yourself with a bra?

Roberto wrote:Not just claims. I held such remains in my hands during my trip to Sobibór. They weren't hard to find, and it's not like I had systematically looked for them let alone done any digging. They just caught my eye. Alan Heath had a similar experience at Chełmno.

I never said "just claims," that's why I referenced Sobibor where you've found the remains. The remains are no doubt at all the camps, it's just that we disagree with the numbers. Treblinka should be littered and the soil filled with them.

Roberto wrote:In the soil, where archaeologists discovered a lot of cremation remains by probing excavations or core drilling. And even whole bodies that had not been extracted from the bottom of the graves, at both Bełżec and Sobibór. It's a shame that religious fundamentalists are influential enough to prohibit excavation on grounds of their religious beliefs, and the stupid fuss that a New York rabbi made about core drilling has led to this method being banned as well and archaeologists now being restricted to non-invasive geophysical methods, according to Gilead et al. Very unfortunate from the point of view of archaeology and historical research. In a blog published after my return from Sobibór in 2008, I wrote the following:
So the mass grave areas are known with what seems to me a degree of precision sufficient to delimit the area where further core drilling and excavation should be done. And new technologies like ground-penetrating radar can further help archaeologists determine where exactly they can expect to find human remains.

This being so, and the given the willingness on the part of at least one of the archaeologists involved (Yoram Haimi, director of the Sobibor Archaeological Project) to do a thorough professional job, the only hindrances standing in the way of documenting in detail what's inside the Sobibor mass graves and thus hitting "Revisionists" where it hurts most are "holy ground" considerations on the part of the Polish government, and eventually also religiously motivated objections against "disturbing the dead".

I hope that these hindrances will soon be overcome. Historical and archaeological knowledge would greatly benefit from it, and I can think of no better way to honor the memory of the people murdered at Sobibor than documenting their remains in as much detail as possible.

Yes, very unfortunate. It's not whether remains are found, it's the amount of them. In Treblinka, the soil should be overflowing with them. I'll be convinced when/if they dig it up and the soil is indeed filled with tonnes of remains.

Roberto wrote:We're talking about dry skin, and muscle tissue apparently doesn't burn that bad if one can keep this charcoal patina from forming.

I don't see how dry skin would burn any better than dry muscle tissue. It's both organic material made from pretty much the same stuff. The only way to prevent the patina from forming is with a constant supply of fuel (wood, fat). In other words, you burn it to a crisp and then some! This means corpses will not burn on their own (unless they have a lot of fat).

Roberto wrote:Not according to Mr. Norbert Fuhrmann, Sales Manager of Air Burners LLC. He wrote me the following (emphases added)
Dear Mr. Muehlenkamp,

Thank you for your message regarding the Swine Report. It was not written by us, but by the USDA, so we really cannot comment on any discrepancies in its contents. Since this report was published, we have gained much more experience with carcass disposal and the use of our machines, usually fireboxes. A good rule of thumb is that you need roughly in tons the same amount of wood waste as the weight of the carcasses for bovines, pigs, horses, sheep, etc. For 5 tons of carcasses you need 4-5 tons of wood waste. Bones have a BTU of about the same as brown coal (ca. 11,000 BTU per pound). If you were to incinerate a lot of bones, much less wood waste would be needed. You could substitute coal for wood waste, but you would use wood to get the fire going in the pit. Of course, in terms of weight, the amount of coal would no longer be 1:1, as the hot coals would stay in the fire box for a long period of time.

Regards,
Norbert Fuhrman
Sales Manager

What kind of bones are we talking about? Bones used for bone meal? They are boiled and dried for several months. I don't see how something with that high of a heating value often gets left behind in cremations. Even in the report by Heinrich May:
The remaining long bones were pulled out and ground in a motor grinder placed in a wooden barrack.

It is obvious bones do not burn well, unless they are dried for several months.

Roberto wrote:No, you have to do something more than just hold a match to it. But then, I said nothing to the contrary. Where does the human body contain leather, by the way?

It doesn't. I'm just comparing leather to dry skin, which I think is similar.

Roberto wrote:That's not exactly true. The point is that when a cremation oven has been heated for a sufficiently long time, fat from the corpses will provide most of the fuel required for cremation.

Yes, when we are cremating obese people. See the e-mail I received from the cremation company.

Roberto wrote:So if you are burning a lot of bodies on a continues basis, the average coal consumption per body will be much lower than if you heat up the crematorium for just one body (not necessarily as low as 3.5 kg per body, but certainly much lower). An engineer of Topf & Söhne even designed a corpse incineration system that was supposed to work on this basis, presumably after having observed how things were done at AB. In this system the corpses themselves were meant to provide most of the fuel for their own combustion as soon as the oven had been sufficiently heated up (the heating up itself would require much external fuel, of course).

Unless they were obese, I don't think so. This must have been some magical oven the Nazis invented or the technology used by them has since long been lost. I think every cremation service on the world would be happy to hear about an oven where the corpses burn on their own.

Roberto wrote:That may be so but, as I said before, it shouldn't make much of a difference for calculating the impact of water and fat loss on fuel requirements whether one considers 0.56 kg of per kg of corpse the amount required to cremate (or at least completely carbonize) a human being with a heating value of 403.881 kCal/kg or a human being with a heating value of 1,525.16 kCal/kg, provided that one knows how the lower value is made up.

Not on your part, no, since you're so sure about the amounts the Nazis supposedly used, guessing by comparing the Lothes and Profe experiment, but MGK would come to a different conclusion.

As for your invitation to RODOH; what difference does it really make communication-wise, other than it being a kind of gesture of courtesy? Give me a good reason and I'll register.

"Rollo the ganger" also made some good points, I think:

1. Decomposition is a calorie consuming process. The calories come from the decomposing material and thus depletes its caloric content. Quantifying that depletion without a systematic analysis is well nigh impossible.
2. Not all proteins are the same. Different proteins means different caloric values.
3. Unless immersed in salt or a hyper hydrophillic soil the minimum moisture content of a corpse in a soil can only be the moisture content of the soil itself. More than likely it will be higher. A good average value for moisture content of soils in temperate areas is around 25%.

Toshiro
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 142
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 1:36 pm

Re: Chelmno book released

Postby Toshiro » 7 years 9 months ago (Sun Feb 26, 2012 8:08 am)

Reply from Roberto:

Roberto wrote:Why should the water in the fat (which is not "the fat itself") behave differently than the other water?

I don't know. I'm going by MGK's and your model. Fat was left, but no % of water. That is wrong. Either that isn't fat any more, but butyric acid and whatnot, or it is fat, but then some water needs to be added to the equation.

Roberto wrote:So the 14 % fat is already minus the water in the fat, which is included in the 64 % water? That's just my point.

Yes, but if some % of fat is left, there will be some water left, not zero, or that isn't fat any more.

Roberto wrote:No, that was certainly not what he was suggesting. Zyklon B was a pest killer, not an anti-typhoid agent, which may have been used to keep the operators from contracting typhus.

And how do you know the people in the van were not "gassed" with this anti-typhoid agent, but CO? This smell was "coming from the van."

Roberto wrote:What's the deal supposed to be? The measurements estimated by May are quite in line with those established by archaeologists.

I don't see it plausible why Chelmno would have several mass graves of dimensions such as: 254m x 7m, 182m x 10m, 174m x 8m, 161m x 8m, 62m x 8m, whereas there are no such pits at Treblinka, where several times more Jews died. And 2 meters of earth covering it? Nonsense.

Roberto wrote:Bothmann was exaggerating. The number killed at Chełmno was about 157,000. Are you trying to make any point, or do you just feel like chatting?

Why would he exaggerate? How could he not know the number? He was one of the men in charge. To say he got the number wrong for as much as 100,000 by mistake is wishful thinking. And why would an SS man be telling such secrets to a lowly forester? Makes perfect sense. If you believe it.

Roberto wrote:Why would they not mistake for a room the inside of a van's loading room, which was all they got to see of the van? Especially in their presumable state of confusion. Besides, we don't know if they did not eventually realize they were inside a van. But once they were inside the van, it was too late.

Okay, let's say it was so. How do you know they were not "gassed" with the anti-typhoid agent? How do you know everything did not "go quiet" in the van because the people realized they're not dying after all? How could a lowly forester be witness to such an event? How come May talks about canisters of CO, but Schalling, where May's report is referenced numerous times, talks about hoses being attached underneath the truck, through which the exhaust gas was piped to the back of the van? And why are the hoses attached to something underneath, and not the exhaust itself?

Roberto wrote:Looks more like a strangling attempt to me. What's the deal supposed to be?

Because a bra is so much more efficient than using your hands alone... The deal is the report is filled with silliness such as this.

Roberto wrote:There is no reason to assume that the soil of Treblinka is not filled with the human remains of hundreds of thousands of people who entered the place and never left it alive (which is why, among other things, "Revisionists" are to this day unable to provide the name of even a single Jew who was transited to the "Russian East" via Treblinka or any other of the extermination camps). If the surface of Treblinka is not as littered with such remains as that of Sobibór, that's just because they did some more cleaning-up at Treblinka when building the memorial.

I'll believe it when I see it.

Roberto wrote:What about your mummies? Doesn't their dry skin burn well?

Mummies are several hundreds or thousands years old. I believe they are a different category altogether. Comparing mummies to several months old corpses is not the same thing.

Roberto wrote:Not necessarily a constant supply of fuel. A rapidly developing, strongly burning fire from below might also do the job, as I argued here. How did they keep the patina from forming in those succesful pyres on the Dresden Altmarkt, by the way?

With wood, straw, kerosene and clothing. In other words; fuel. You need fuel to burn flesh, whether fresh or dry.

Roberto wrote:Or very little water in them and corpses with a comparatively higher fat content (dried-out or not) below them. A correct arrangement of the pyre provided, the time comes when the corpses' water has evaporated and they continue burning without additional external fuel having to be added. It was that way in Lothes & Profe's experiments, IIRC. And it was that way on the Dresden Altmarkt.

Fischer argued dry muscle tissue will not burn on its own. Those people did not have a lot of fat on them, therefore extra fuel most certainly was necessary, because the little fat they did have, was not enough to burn the entire heap of corpses on their own.

Roberto wrote:No, there's no indication that this was meant.

I think it was. Who ever incinerates bones without any flesh on? What happened to the flesh? Either a whole carcass or its parts are incinerated, or old bones for whatever reason.

Roberto wrote:Why, have you never seen lumps of coal left unburned or only partially burned after a bonfire goes out? I have, and it never led me to conclude that coal doesn't burn well.

Of course I have. Try making a barbecue with fresh bones alone and tell me how well that went for you. They are not very flammable, unless old and processed.

Roberto wrote:Really? I expected dry skin to be more like paper.

Maybe mummy skin.

Roberto wrote:Did they say obese people?

Yes, the e-mail I sent them was based on this publication of theirs. I referenced this in my e-mail, and this is to what they were referring to with the ~50 kg of fat. Other than that, I don't know of any persons that have 50 kg of body fat and are not obese.

Roberto wrote:Engineer Sander of Topf & Söhne thought otherwise, and he had the experience of Auschwitz-Birkenau to go by. He spoke of so-called well-nourished corpses being used to help burn other corpses once the oven had been sufficiently heated. Well-nourished is not the same as obese.

And did Sander say 3,5 kg of coal is all it takes to completely cremate a corpse? Is 3,5 kg of coal all it takes to heat up a cremation oven? Did an average Auschwitz inmate have enough fat on himself/herself to completely evaporate all the water in the corpse and still have enough of it left to help burn the other corpses? If they weren't fat, which they weren't, by the way, then this is complete and utter nonsense. An average human corpse does not have enough fat to burn on its own, let alone serve as the fuel source for other corpses. The only way this oven could work as described is with heaps of coal or obese corpses. 3,5 kg of coal is fantasy land.

Roberto wrote:Such only happens when many corpses are burned on a continuous basis, with the oven not being cooled down for many hours after having been heated up. I don't think there's many a cremation service in the world that burns corpses in this manner. In civilian cremation the oven is usually heated up to burn just one single body, and that of course requires a lot of fuel.

Again, if they weren't fat, it didn't happen. Unless, of course, they used a lot more coal than you people want to admit, which they would have to. Average people simply do not have enough fat on them to evaporate all the water, burn on their own and to serve as a fuel source for other corpses.

Edit:
Follow-up: viewtopic.php?p=54665#p54665


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests