acclaimed "eyewitness" Henryk Tauber redux

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9898
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

acclaimed "eyewitness" Henryk Tauber redux

Postby Hannover » 5 years 9 months ago (Fri Feb 07, 2014 11:39 am)

I thought it important bring back Henryk Tauber for discussion.
Tauber is a big deal according to those who profit from and promote the 'holocaust' storyline. The profiteers market Tauber as an ironclad "eyewitness", Tauber's tales are absolutely vital to the scam . However, to those who examine Tauber's claims in a rational manner it is obvious that he was a blatant liar, Tauber makes claims that are simply impossible.

Tauber was an alleged crematorium worker who claimed to have slept in the crematoria dormitories, here's his story:

:arrow: In testifying to the Soviet Commission (Nuremberg document USSR-008) of 1945, he claims 10,000-12,000 per day were cremated in the ovens of Auschwitz-Birkenau.

This is an utter impossibility given the timeline and the number of functioning crematoria at Auschwitz/Birkenau. The 10,000-12,000 per day figure also served the Communist assertion that 279,000 were cremated monthly (as alleged by the Soviets in a May 1945 report). No other figure would serve the propaganda, and the figure is itself utterly laughable.

:arrow: Tauber stated that a body could be cremated in 5-7 minutes.

An impossibility even today (it's more like 60-90 minutes), simply absurd with 1940s technology.

:arrow: Tauber stated:
"Ober Capo August explained to us that, according to the calculations and plans for this crematorium, 5 to 7 minutes was allowed to burn one corpse in a muffle."

There are no such "calculations and plans" in the records.

:arrow: Tauber testified to skimming off boiling human fat from massive open air cremations.

Impossible, the fat would have ignited; there is no evidence for massive cremation pits.

:arrow: Tauber testified to reservoirs filled with human fat that flowed from the burning corpses.

same as above

:arrow: Tauber:
"One day the SS men threw a man into the boiling fat (in the open-air pit filled with human fat that ran from the corpses into a separate reservoir dug in the ground, and was poured over the corpses to accelerate the combustion), then pulled him out, still alive, and shot him. "The next day, the corpse was brought back to the crematorium, where it was incinerated in a pit"

No explanation necessary.

:arrow: Tauber testified that he inserted and cremated 8 bodies at once, in one oven muffle, in order to signal Allied aircraft with smoke.

Impossible, there was not enough space for 8 corpses, and more than one corpse per muffle would have caused damage to the oven, as stated by the builder of the crematoria, SS Kurt Prufer. Plus, the crematoria at Auschwitz gave off practically no smoke...as evidenced by many wartime aerial photos.

:arrow: Tauber speaks of the existence of quaint wooden benches in the alleged 'gas chambers'.

Lovely, considering the already impossible space availability vs. the numbers allegedly gassed per session. There is no rational, sustainable evidence for homicidal gas chambers.

What all of this shows is that Tauber has been attributed with giving 'eyewitness' testimony that is not only impossible and simply ridiculous; but was meant to serve the unsustainable claims about Auschwitz.

The tide is turning

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

User avatar
ginger
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 301
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 11:52 am

Re: acclaimed "eyewitness" Henryk Tauber redux

Postby ginger » 5 years 9 months ago (Fri Feb 07, 2014 3:56 pm)

I've been noticing that the Holocaust Industry insists that cremation of great numbers of bodies in a very short time took place, which is a major flaw in their narrative. Even as recently as 2000, in the tv film NOVA Holocaust on Trial, a pompous attorney and judge, solenmly proclaim 120,000 were incinerated at Auschwitz-Birkenau each month. 120,000 cremations each month would mean 4000 a day, or, 100 per cremation hearth each day, assuming there were a total of 40 hearths there.

Ivan Legace and Ernst Zundel convinced me the numbers in the narrative are impossibly high. When will these claims be quietly dropped? Once the cremation claims are gone, the whole narrative collapses.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9898
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: acclaimed "eyewitness" Henryk Tauber redux

Postby Hannover » 5 years 9 months ago (Fri Feb 07, 2014 5:25 pm)

ginger said:
I've been noticing that the Holocaust Industry insists that cremation of great numbers of bodies in a very short time took place, which is a major flaw in their narrative. Even as recently as 2000, in the tv film NOVA Holocaust on Trial, a pompous attorney and judge, solenmly proclaim 120,000 were incinerated at Auschwitz-Birkenau each month. 120,000 cremations each month would mean 4000 a day, or, 100 per cremation hearth each day, assuming there were a total of 40 hearths there.

Ivan Legace and Ernst Zundel convinced me the numbers in the narrative are impossibly high. When will these claims be quietly dropped? Once the cremation claims are gone, the whole narrative collapses.
These claims cannot be dropped unless there is unexpected honesty from the 'holocaust' Industry. Indeed, among other absurd and impossible claims, "Once the cremation claims are gone, the whole narrative collapses". Hence we now have laws which they hope will prevent scrutiny of their ridiculous nonsense. Why do Jewish supremacists need laws to prevent examination of what they claim is 'proven fact'?
'Once they lie, they must continue to lie'.
Only lies need the protection of government, truth can stand on it's own.

- Thomas Jefferson

The tide is turning.

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

User avatar
blake121666
Member
Member
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 9:04 pm

Re: acclaimed "eyewitness" Henryk Tauber redux

Postby blake121666 » 5 years 9 months ago (Fri Feb 07, 2014 7:27 pm)

I think claims like that fall flat just for the fact that the Germans used single-muffle crematoria and not incinerators for the alleged hundreds (if not thousands) of corpses. And then exterminationists have the balls to make claims about German "efficiency". German efficency: Let's cremate them one at a time nonstop for days and weeks on end instead of in big batches all at once!

Has anyone found any trash incinerators at any of these camps?
Last edited by blake121666 on Fri Feb 07, 2014 7:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Carto's Cutlass Supreme
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2362
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:42 am
Location: Northern California

Re: acclaimed "eyewitness" Henryk Tauber redux

Postby Carto's Cutlass Supreme » 5 years 9 months ago (Fri Feb 07, 2014 7:31 pm)

They wanted credible witnesses to Auschwitz after the war. But the problem was that the number of supposedly dead was 4 million. That is the number mentioned in the Nuremberg indictment (not judgment). Enter Henryk Tauber. He's their credible witness but he's got to throw out cremation numbers that make the 4 million number possible. I got that from reading Mattogno.

In short Tauber is an alleged witness right after the war who discredits himself, for one, by throwing out ridiculous numbers to support the 4 million number.

User avatar
Dresden
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1426
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 5:38 pm

Re: acclaimed "eyewitness" Henryk Tauber redux

Postby Dresden » 5 years 9 months ago (Fri Feb 07, 2014 7:48 pm)

blake121666 said:

"Has anyone found any trash incinerators at any of these camps?"

From Carlo Mattogno in "Dissecting the Holocaust"

"Crematoria II and III of Birkenau had a large oven room measuring 30 m × 11.24 m (98.4' × 36.9'). The five three-muffle cremation ovens were located along the longitudinal axis. Adjoining the oven room was a crematorium wing 10 m × 12 m (33' × 39') in size and split into two sections by a dividing wall. The smaller section directly adjoining the oven room was in turn subdivided into three rooms: two engine rooms and a room for one of the three exhaust installations with which the crematorium was equipped. The other section contained the stack, the other two exhaust installations and a trash incinerator, which is why this room was labeled “trash incinerator” on the corresponding blueprints"(note)*

* Plan of the new crematorium of Auschwitz (and future crematorium II/III of Birkenau). Diagram by the Construc- tion Office of Auschwitz, no. 933, of Jan. 19, 1942. APMO, neg. nos. 20957 and 20818/4.
Maybe, just maybe, they believe what they are telling you about the 'holocaust', but maybe, just maybe, their contempt for your intelligence and your character is beyond anything you could ever have imagined. -- Bradley Smith

User avatar
TheBlackRabbitofInlé
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 834
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 10:38 am

Re: acclaimed "eyewitness" Henryk Tauber redux

Postby TheBlackRabbitofInlé » 5 years 9 months ago (Sat Feb 08, 2014 12:25 pm)

Tauber's real name was Hirsch Fuchsbrunner, and he eventually ended up in the U.S.

A guy claiming to be his son felt compelled to sign up and comment on a thread I had started on rodoh:
http://rodoh.info/forum/viewtopic.php?p=27446#p27446
Nazis tried to create super-soldiers, using steroids ... they sought to reanimate the dead—coffins of famous Germanic warriors were found hidden in a mine, with plans to bring them back to life at the war’s end.
- Prof. Noah Charney

Bob
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2012 5:49 am

Re: acclaimed "eyewitness" Henryk Tauber redux

Postby Bob » 5 years 9 months ago (Sat Feb 08, 2014 12:56 pm)

Just a few corrections:

Hannover wrote: :arrow: Tauber stated that a body could be cremated in 5-7 minutes.

An impossibility even today (it's more like 60-90 minutes), simply absurd with 1940s technology.


An impossibility, yes. But cremation time can be and actually was reduced to some 35 minutes on average in Ignis Hüttenbau ovens at Theresienstadt or some 40-45 minutes in Topf double muffle oven at Gusen. Both not comparable with Topf ovens at Auschwitz, but just to make clear that it all depends on the oven/crematorium and procedure leaving aside the nature of the body. In this context cremation does not mean complete cremation, but just a complete process of cremation of a body in the first chamber after which the remains fell though the muffle grid into the post combustion chamber or like at Theresienstadt - were pushed into the back of the muffle and another body could be introduced into the muffle. The remains of the first body burned for more time to complete the process and simultaneously the second body was burning as well. Carlo Mattogno´s studies covered this topic.

Hannover wrote: :arrow: Tauber testified that he inserted and cremated 8 bodies at once, in one oven muffle, in order to signal Allied aircraft with smoke.

Impossible, there was not enough space for 8 corpses, and more than one corpse per muffle would have caused damage to the oven, as stated by the builder of the crematoria, SS Kurt Prufer. Plus, the crematoria at Auschwitz gave off practically no smoke...as evidenced by many wartime aerial photos.


I am not aware of such statement from Kurt Prüfer, you can quote, but is correct that more corpses mean a risk of damages to the brickwork leaving aside other factors. Tauber did not say that he wanted to produce smoke, the issue is more serious, he informed us that he wanted to have "a bigger fire emerging from the chimney". This sentence thus informs us that not only he wanted to produce bigger fire, there was a fire even without this alleged practice albeit smaller, he made clear that alleged fire was a direct consequence of cremating the corpses. False of course. Crematoria emitted smoke as stated by Prüfer and as evidenced by layer of soot accumulated at the top of the crematoria chimneys, mainly on one side obviously because of a wind direction. And as I have informed in the thread where I provided the photos, in some cases this layer was accumulated in just a few or several weeks. Smoke is not visible on any photograph (ground/aerial) because crematoria were not active.

blake121666 wrote:I think claims like that fall flat just for the fact that the Germans used single-muffle crematoria and not incinerators for the alleged hundreds (if not thousands) of corpses.


As Carlo Mattogno documented (online, pp. 363ff.), there were plans for installations for mass cremation of corpses in the beginning of 1943 (for instance another crematorium no. VI), but when the new crematoria became finally available and when they realized that the current capacity is sufficient (since it was planned in the light of 1942 typhus epidemic and projected population), these plans were abandoned and later even Krematorium I was shut down in July 1943. Matching real history as usual but in clear contradiction with myth of extermination.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9898
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: acclaimed "eyewitness" Henryk Tauber redux

Postby Hannover » 5 years 9 months ago (Sat Feb 08, 2014 2:31 pm)

"Corrections"? Not really.

Bob said:
An impossibility, yes. But cremation time can be and actually was reduced to some 35 minutes on average in Ignis Hüttenbau ovens at Theresienstadt or some 40-45 minutes in Topf double muffle oven at Gusen. Both not comparable with Topf ovens at Auschwitz, but just to make clear that it all depends on the oven/crematorium and procedure leaving aside the nature of the body. In this context cremation does not mean complete cremation, but just a complete process of cremation of a body in the first chamber after which the remains fell though the muffle grid into the post combustion chamber or like at Theresienstadt - were pushed into the back of the muffle and another body could be introduced into the muffle. The remains of the first body burned for more time to complete the process and simultaneously the second body was burning as well. Carlo Mattogno´s studies covered this topic.
- Tauber's 5-7 minutes is an impossibility, as I stated. Simple as that.
- Then Bob brings up partial cremations which is an invalid comparison. Of course partial cremations would take less time. A silly comparison.
- Bob talks about crematory ovens at Theresienstadt where partially burned corpses were supposedly pushed back and a new corpses introduced, which are not comparable to those at Auschwitz which is what Tauber lies about, and Prufer stated could not handle the strain of more than one corpse. The 'holocaust' storyline, AFAIK does not refer to such a method, the storyline is that multiple corpses were loaded into the ovens simultaneously, not after a corpse was partially burned. Again, pointless deflective arguments from Bob.

Bob said:
I am not aware of such statement from Kurt Prüfer, you can quote, but is correct that more corpses mean a risk of damages to the brickwork leaving aside other factors. Tauber did not say that he wanted to produce smoke, the issue is more serious, he informed us that he wanted to have "a bigger fire emerging from the chimney". This sentence thus informs us that not only he wanted to produce bigger fire, there was a fire even without this alleged practice albeit smaller, he made clear that alleged fire was a direct consequence of cremating the corpses. False of course. Crematoria emitted smoke as stated by Prüfer and as evidenced by layer of soot accumulated at the top of the crematoria chimneys, mainly on one side obviously because of a wind direction. And as I have informed in the thread where I provided the photos, in some cases this layer was accumulated in just a few or several weeks. Smoke is not visible on any photograph (ground/aerial) because crematoria were not active.
Concerning Prufer, his lack of knowledge about Prufer's statements is not my problem.
Tauber specifically stated:
During the incineration of such [not emaciated] corpses, we used the coke only to light the fire of the furnace initially, for fatty corpses burned of their own accord thanks to the combustion of the body fat. On occasion, when coke was in short supply, we would put some straw and wood in the ash bins under the muffles, and once the fat of the corpse began to burn the other corpses would catch light themselves. […] Generally speaking, we burned 4 or 5 corpses at a time in one muffle, but sometimes we charged a greater number of corpses. It was possible to charge up to 8 “Müselmanns.” Such big charges were incinerated without the knowledge of the head of the crematorium during air raid warnings in order to attract the attention of airmen by having a bigger fire emerging from the chimney.
http://www.whale.to/b/henryk_tauber.html
But Bob claims such an activity would / did give off smoke, see above. He then dodges the damning aerial photos by saying the crematorium were not active, which flies in the face of the timeline of the story. The photos were taken at the time of alleged 24/7 'massive industrial assembly-line gassings and cremations'. No smoke is visible in the photos, but according to Bob, smoke should be visible. Bob's position is not manageable.
- And Tauber could not have put 8 corpses inside the crematory oven, they simply would not have fit. It's laughable
- And Tauber further steps on a landmine by claiming he caused a fire which of course would damage the crematoria. Fire only came out of the chimneys if there was a serious malfunction, not during normal cremations. Tauber would have been seriously disciplined had he tried to insert 8 corpses as he tried to start a fire. Again. more laughs.
- Bob mentions a chimney with soot markings as if that is proof of continuous smoke. Soot has nothing to do continuous smoke. It simply means that upon initial firing there was some soot created as the fuel heated up. Bob cannot provide any photos of regularly smoking crematorium chimneys. I can provide aerial photos at the alleged time of alleged massive gassing & cremations where no smoke is visible.

- Bob said: "Matching real history as usual but in clear contradiction with myth of extermination." ?? OK, sure. But I do wish he would be consistent with his "real history".

The tide is turning.

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

Bob
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2012 5:49 am

Re: acclaimed "eyewitness" Henryk Tauber redux

Postby Bob » 5 years 9 months ago (Sat Feb 08, 2014 8:22 pm)

Hannover wrote:Tauber's 5-7 minutes is an impossibility, as I stated. Simple as that.


Bob previously - An impossibility, yes. So what point is Hannover trying to make and he argues against who?

Hannover wrote:Then Bob brings up partial cremations which is an invalid comparison. Of course partial cremations would take less time. A silly comparison. - Bob talks about crematory ovens at Theresienstadt where partially burned corpses were supposedly pushed back and a new corpses introduced, which are not comparable to those at Auschwitz


Hannover can´t understand to written text, read my comment again.

Hannover wrote:and Prufer stated could not handle the strain of more than one corpse.

Concerning Prufer, his lack of knowledge about Prufer's statements is not my problem.


Prüfer did not state such thing as far as I know and I am still waiting for the quote which will be no doubt erroneous translation from Gerald Fleming.

Hannover wrote:But Bob claims such an activity would / did give off smoke, see above. He then dodges the damning aerial photos by saying the crematorium were not active, which flies in the face of the timeline of the story. The photos were taken at the time of alleged 24/7 'massive industrial assembly-line gassings and cremations'. No smoke is visible in the photos, but according to Bob, smoke should be visible. Bob's position is not manageable.


In reality Bob does not dodge anything since Bob was the one who linked to photos and pointed out that no existing photo show smoking crematoria which mean that no cremations were taking place in them precisely because cremations produced smoke, so cremations did not take place. What was too hard for Hannover to understand in my comment?

Is Hannover claiming that cremations are maybe taking place in aerial photos since acc. to him crematoria did not smoke during operation?

Hannover wrote:- And Tauber could not have put 8 corpses inside the crematory oven, they simply would not have fit. It's laughable
- And Tauber further steps on a landmine by claiming he caused a fire which of course would damage the crematoria. Fire only came out of the chimneys if there was a serious malfunction, not during normal cremations. Tauber would have been seriously disciplined had he tried to insert 8 corpses as he tried to start a fire. Again. more laughs.


I did not argued against this at all since there was no reason, so Hannover argues against who, I do not know. I only pointed out that Hannover´s assertion about smoke is false, Tauber claimed that he wanted to produce bigger flames and not smoke. In this case Hannover acted like Tauber´s advocate and replaced flames with smoke.

As we are at it, here another correction which I previously missed:

Hannover wrote: :arrow: Tauber speaks of the existence of quaint wooden benches in the alleged 'gas chambers'.


But Tauber does not speak about "gas chambers", but about "undressing room." Cases like this make people believe that revisionists are lying when they come across the correct quote.

Hannover wrote:- Bob mentions a chimney with soot markings as if that is proof of continuous smoke. Soot has nothing to do continuous smoke. It simply means that upon initial firing there was some soot created as the fuel heated up. Bob cannot provide any photos of regularly smoking crematorium chimneys. I can provide aerial photos at the alleged time of alleged massive gassing & cremations where no smoke is visible.


Soot has of course much to do with smoke emitted from the chimney since smoke is precisely the element which contains little particles which accumulates at the location exposed to influence of smoke for some time. Hannover´s assertion that soot was emitted from the chimney without smoke thanks to only "initial firing" as "the fuel heated up" is no doubt interesting and I would welcome some example of this phenomena. Just explain and show us how burning of coke brought soot at the top of the chimneys through smoke ducts more than 24 m long without smoke and mainly on one side of the chimney. Bob cannot produce photo of regularly smoking crematorium chimney since as Bob pointed out, there is no such photo, Hannover has some problem with understanding to written text. Hannover ignores his own source Kurt Prüfer who explained why crematoria at the camps emitted smoke, why he ignores him?

Hannover wrote:Bob said: "Matching real history as usual but in clear contradiction with myth of extermination." ?? OK, sure. But I do wish he would be consistent with his "real history".


In fact Bob is consistent and so is Carlo Mattogno who clearly explained and backed up that crematoria emitted smoke during operation. Hannover is wrong like Jean Claude Pressac who claimed that crematoria did not smoke precisely because no photos show smoking crematoria in order to make people believe that cremations are taking place in crematoria but cannot be seen in photos.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9898
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: acclaimed "eyewitness" Henryk Tauber redux

Postby Hannover » 5 years 9 months ago (Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:27 pm)

Bob said:
Prüfer did not state such thing as far as I know and I am still waiting for the quote which will be no doubt erroneous translation from Gerald Fleming.
Please show me the error in Fleming's translation.

see Mattogno here:
Zimmerman's cremation deceptions exposed by Mattogno
During the interrogation of 19 March, K.Prüfer declared:

"I spoke about the enormous strain on the overused furnaces. I told Chief Engineer Sander: I am worried whether the furnaces can stand the excessive usage. In my presence two cadavers were pushed into one muffle instead of one cadaver. The furnaces could not stand the strain." 11

more here:
from: Turpitz @ 'holocaust' Hist. Project's Zimmerman - more deception
Hannover wrote:Exposing the shyster Zimmerman has become routine for Revisionists.
Read on as Carlo Mattogno demolishes more lies of John Zimmerman.

http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... -disposal/

Zimmerman writes on p.19 of 'Body Disposal at Auschwitz':

Kurt Prüfer, builder of the ovens, was asked why the brick linings of the ovens were damaged so quickly. He replied that the damage resulting after six months was "because the strain on the furnaces was enormous." He recounted how he had told Topf's chief engineer in charge of crematoria, Fritz Sanders, about the strain on the furnaces of so many corpses waiting to be incinerated as a result of the gassing. Sanders stated that he had been told by Prüfer and another Topf engineer that the "capacity of the furnaces was so great because three corpses were incinerated simultaneously."
He adds:
"Prufer said that two bodies were simultaneously incinerated in his presence".

The reference is to the interrogations of the Topf engineers on the part of a Soviet inquiry of SMERSH between 1946 and 1948. The records were published by Gerald Fleming, from which Zimmerman takes his citations (notes 121 and 122).


In reality Kurt Prüfer stated the ***VERY OPPOSITE*** of what Zimmerman attributed to him by means of a despicable manipulation.

On page 200 of the cited work, this is how Fleming summarizes part of the interrogation which K.Prüfer underwent on 5 March 1946:
"Normal crematoria work with prewarmed air so that the corpse burns quickly and without smoke.
As the crematoria in the concentration camps were constructed differently, this procedure could not be used.
The corpses burned more slowly and created more smoke, necessitating ventilation.

Question: How many corpses were incinerated in Auschwitz per hour?

Answer: "In a crematorium with five furnaces and fifteen muffles, fifteen corpses were burned."

During the interrogation of 19 March, K.Prüfer declared:

"I spoke about the enormous strain on the overused furnaces. I told Chief Engineer Sander: I am worried whether the furnaces can stand the excessive usage. ***In my presence two cadavers were pushed into one muffle instead of one cadaver. The furnaces could not stand the strain."***


Recapitulating, Kurt Prüfer stated that:

1. The cremations in the concentration camp ovens took place "more slowly" than in civilian ovens.
2. In Krema II and Krema III of Birkenau (5 three-muffle ovens) it was possible to cremate 15 cadavers in one hour, that is, the duration of a single cremation was one hour.
3. The attempt to simultaneously cremate two cadavers failed because "the furnaces could not stand the strain."

These three statements alone constitute a radical refutation of Zimmerman's thermotechnical fantasies.

conclusion:
a. in order to prove the thesis of "multiple" cremations, Zimmerman quotes a second-hand declaration of Prüfer and omits the primary declaration of Prüfer himself

b. for the same motive, Zimmerman quotes Prüfer's statement in which he "said that two bodies were simultaneously incinerated in his presence," but omits the statement which follows: "The furnaces could not stand the strain."

These surgical omissions are unequivocal proof of Zimmerman's complete and deliberate deceptiveness.

Bob, you stated:
Bob previously - An impossibility, yes. So what point is Hannover trying to make and he argues against who?
Then why did you quote it as if it needed "correction"?
Bob, you said:
Hannover can´t understand to written text, read my comment again.
You in fact did compare partial cremations, please read what you actually posted. You said:
In this context cremation does not mean complete cremation, but just a complete process of cremation of a body in the first chamber after which the remains fell though the muffle grid into the post combustion chamber or like at Theresienstadt - were pushed into the back of the muffle and another body could be introduced into the muffle. The remains of the first body burned for more time to complete the process and simultaneously the second body was burning as well.


You said:
Is Hannover claiming that cremations are maybe taking place in aerial photos since acc. to him crematoria did not smoke during operation?
I'm saying that the crematorium, unless there was serious malfunction, did not give off smoke during operation, yes. Is that hard to understand? Show me your smoking chimneys of Auschwitz in action, Bob. Photos of A/B all over the internet, Bob. None show smoking chimneys. Well, except the faked, pasted on smoke example that I use for my avatar. :lol:
Image

You then said:
Tauber claimed that he wanted to produce bigger flames and not smoke. In this case Hannover acted like Tauber´s advocate and replaced flames with smoke.
Another consistency breakdown on your part. I said, Tauber's actions if true and according to you would have created smoke. Please actually read what I post.

Show me your smoking chimneys of Auschwitz in action. Show me Bob. You can't, I know why.

You said:
But Tauber does not speak about "gas chambers", but about "undressing room."
Oh please, Mr. Mathis :lol:, and what was this "undressing room" supposedly part of? answer: an alleged 'gas chamber'. Your are really reaching now, Bob.

You said:
Soot has of course much to do with smoke emitted from the chimney since smoke is precisely the element which contains little particles which accumulates at the location exposed to influence of smoke for some time. Hannover´s assertion that soot was emitted from the chimney without smoke thanks to only "initial firing" as "the fuel heated up" is no doubt interesting and I would welcome some example of this phenomena. Just explain and show us how burning of coke brought soot at the top of the chimneys through smoke ducts more than 24 m long without smoke and mainly on one side of the chimney. Bob cannot produce photo of regularly smoking crematorium chimney since as Bob pointed out, there is no such photo, Hannover has some problem with understanding to written text. Hannover ignores his own source Kurt Prüfer who explained why crematoria at the camps emitted smoke, why he ignores him?
And the question remains, why "Bob cannot produce photo of regularly smoking crematorium chimney"?

Prufer said in that regard:
"Normal crematoria 8 work with prewarmed air 9 so that the corpse burns quickly and without smoke. As the crematoria in the concentration camps were constructed differently, this procedure could not be used.10 The corpses burned more slowly and created more smoke, necessitating ventilation.
Note that he does not mention Auschwitz in this case. We read only "concentration camps", as if they used the same crematorium ovens, Bob mentions previously that different ovens were used elsewhere. And why did the corpses allegedly burn slower? Generally, a corpse is a corpse. Something fishy in that part of Prufer's testimony.
and then we have:
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/Kremas/Topf_family.html

With the expansion of cremation in Germany as a burial rite in the 1920s, the firm's ambitious chief engineer Kurt Prüfer pioneered furnaces which complied with strict regulations on preserving the dignity of the body.
Naked flame could not come in contact with the coffin, and cremation was to be smoke and odour free
Thereby making the previous quoted part of Prufer's "testimony" to the communists look rather weak if not coerced a la Auschwitz commandant Hoess. Why would he not use this vaunted smoke & odor free technology at Auschwitz? I submit that he did.
I believe that Prufer was at times attempting to tell the communists what they demaded while getting some zingers in his testimony, much like A/B commandant Hoess, much like einsatzgruppen SS officer Blobel. Another topic to be sure.

Bob, you have your photos of soot at Auschwitz, but have none of your religiously smoking chimneys. Show me a smoking Auschwitz chimney, Bob. You cannot, simple. Proof required.

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

Bob
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2012 5:49 am

Re: acclaimed "eyewitness" Henryk Tauber redux

Postby Bob » 5 years 9 months ago (Sun Feb 09, 2014 7:43 am)

Hannover wrote:Please show me the error in Fleming's translation.


That Zimmerman is deceptive is correct since he manipulated with the quotes, but another issue is Fleming´s translation which is not "the furnaces could not stand the strain"[1] but "did not cope with that load." Carlo Mattogno informed about it in his book:[2]

"I later found out that Fleming’s translation (“enormous strain,” “the furnaces could not stand the strain”) is wrong, too. Particularly the sentence “pječi nje spravljalis’ s toi nagruzkoi” does not mean “the furnaces could not stand the strain” but “did not cope with that load,” that is to say, to the load of two to three corpses inserted into one muffle; “nagruzka” designates in fact the “load” of the oven. Prüfer therefore meant that the ovens did not succeed to cremate such a load in an economically advantageous manner if compared to a load of merely a single body per muffle. This does, of course, not alter the fact of Zimmerman’s own manipulations."

Or in more lengthy article in Italian. Hannover should read updated books and not to use old and not updated articles copy&pasted on Codoh.

Hannover wrote:Then why did you quote it as if it needed "correction"?


I quoted whole context so readers will know what Hannover is talking about since "(it's more like 60-90 minutes), simply absurd with 1940s technology" really does not tell to readers what is going on. That I did not object anything about the first part of Hannover´s quote was quite clear from my response that this is "an impossibility, yes." So again, what point is Hannover trying to make other than irrelevant complaint about imaginary problem, I do not know.

Hannover wrote:You in fact did compare partial cremations, please read what you actually posted. You said:


In our case a cremation of body allowing another to be introduced is a time when the remains of the first body fell through the grid or like at Theresienstadt - were pushed to the back of the muffle. Like it or not, but this is what is considered as a cremation of one body in our case, this determines capacity of the oven, not a complete cremation time but a cremation time in the first chamber.

Hannover wrote:I'm saying that the crematorium, unless there was serious malfunction, did not give off smoke during operation, yes. Is that hard to understand? Show me your smoking chimneys of Auschwitz in action, Bob. Photos of A/B all over the internet, Bob. None show smoking chimneys. Well, except the faked, pasted on smoke example that I use for my avatar.


I did not ask about malfunction etc., I asked precisely this: "Is Hannover claiming that cremations are maybe taking place in aerial photos since acc. to him crematoria did not smoke during operation?" So again Hannover, are you claiming that is possible that cremations are taking place in aerial photos because acc. to you chimneys did not smoke during operation and thus cannot be seen in the photos if they are operating? Yes or No?

Hannover wrote:Another consistency breakdown on your part.


Breakdown is on Hannover´s side since he said that Tauber cremated 8 corpses at once "in order to signal Allied aircraft with smoke" whereas the actual quote says he allegedly did it to have "a bigger fire emerging from the chimney."[3] Hannover is having problems with admission of his error.

Hannover wrote:Oh please, Mr. Mathis :lol:, and what was this "undressing room" supposedly part of? answer: an alleged 'gas chamber'. Your are really reaching now, Bob.


I merely pointed out that Hannover again wrongly quoted Tauber and instead of admission of his another error he produced this lovely response. Contrary to Hannover´s argument be built on this false quote, benches allegedly presented in alleged undressing room for victims are irrelevant for the issue of capacity of alleged gas chamber.

Hannover wrote:And the question remains, why "Bob cannot produce photo of regularly smoking crematorium chimney"? Bob, you have your photos of soot at Auschwitz, but have none of your religiously smoking chimneys. Show me a smoking Auschwitz chimney, Bob. You cannot, simple. Proof required.


If Hannover can stop with his ignorance of my comments, he can read again in my comments that there is no such photo because crematoria were not in operation and thus not smoking. I noted that Hannover refused to explain his alleged phenomena and have no arguments against my arguments that soot was accumulate at the top of the chimneys by smoke. If he wants to see some smoking crematorium chimney, he can check the Hadamar crematorium chimney whose pictures "friedrichjansson" posted in the provided thread. Here a picture of the Hadamar oven which is obviously a Kori oven.

Hannover wrote:Note that he does not mention Auschwitz in this case. We read only "concentration camps", as if they used the same crematorium ovens, Bob mentions previously that different ovens were used elsewhere. And why did the corpses allegedly burn slower? Generally, a corpse is a corpse. Something fishy in that part of Prufer's testimony.

Thereby making the previous quoted part of Prufer's "testimony" to the communists look rather weak if not coerced a la Auschwitz commandant Hoess. I believe that Prufer was at times attempting to tell the communists what they demaded while getting some zingers in his testimony, much like A/B commandant Hoess, much like einsatzgruppen SS officer Blobel. Another topic to be sure.

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/Kremas/Topf_family.html
With the expansion of cremation in Germany as a burial rite in the 1920s, the firm's ambitious chief engineer Kurt Prüfer pioneered furnaces which complied with strict regulations on preserving the dignity of the body.
Naked flame could not come in contact with the coffin, and cremation was to be smoke and odour free


Hannover´s objection about not explicitly mentioned Auschwitz is irrelevant since the missing injection of preheated air is precisely what was missing in Topf ovens at Auschwitz-Birkenau and they did not work with preheated air but with cold air and I hope that Hannover at least knows what is difference between preheated air and cold air. Actually nothing "fishy" since slower cremation process of corpses in concentration camps was hardly placed in Prüfer ´s mouth by his Soviet interrogators. Hannover´s link to fpp.co.uk is irrelevant, we are not speaking about civilian crematoria, but about crematoria at concentration camps which were different. Needless to say that smoke was problem even in civilian crematoria as Carlo Mattogno pointed out with relevant literature dated to 1944.

Hannover´ link to nonsenses from known Topf exhibition which is riddled with nonsenses like "crematoria resembling incinerators for animal carcasses" only illustrates his desperate position and contradicts his "no naked flames, smoke and odour free" quote. He of course posted these nonsenses only because they are from David Irving´s site, but in reality this comes from this exhibition. Hannover unable to find something better thus blindly accepted even exterminationists´ nonsenses he himself attacks so often.

If Hannover has problem with the fact that crematoria chimneys smoked when in operation, he is challenged to produce his own study refuting not only literature on this subject which acc. to him probably lied, but mainly exhaustive research by Carlo Mattogno and available photos because he is as far as I know the only living person who is claiming that crematoria at Auschwitz did not smoke when in operation. So a study or analysis to back up this position is welcomed, at this time is false and unfounded.

So what arguments and evidence Hannover has to support his theory that crematoria did not emit smoke during their operation? Keep in mind the guidelines and tell us. In the meantime readers can check this thread where Mattogno´s analysis was presented and praised by Hannover himself without objection and he called it conclusive.

[1]Gerald Fleming, Hitler and the Final Solution, University of California Press, Los Angeles, 1994, p. 207.
[2]Germar Rudolf, Carlo Mattogno, Auschwitz Lies: Legends, Lies & Prejudices on the Holocaust, Washington DC, The Barnes Review, 2011, p. 112.
[3]Jean-Claude Pressac, Auschwitz: Technique and operation of the gas chambers, The Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, New York, 1989, p. 489 online.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9898
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: acclaimed "eyewitness" Henryk Tauber redux

Postby Hannover » 5 years 9 months ago (Sun Feb 09, 2014 12:02 pm)

Bob, you said:
Particularly the sentence “pječi nje spravljalis’ s toi nagruzkoi” does not mean “the furnaces could not stand the strain” but “did not cope with that load,” that is to say, to the load of two to three corpses inserted into one muffle; “nagruzka” designates in fact the “load” of the oven.
Oh please, this is truly laughable. There is essentially no difference between the two, but you think it's a big deal. It's called splitting hairs which makes no difference whatsoever. And no, 2-3 corpses does not indicate it's normal load as you apparently wish, it indicates an overload which Prufer says the muffle could not cope with. If it was a normal load it certainly would have been able cope with it. Incredible nonsense from you, Bob. You ignore the quote you went all out to clarify.

You said:
I quoted whole context so readers will know what Hannover is talking about since "(it's more like 60-90 minutes), simply absurd with 1940s technology" really does not tell to readers what is going on. That I did not object anything about the first part of Hannover´s quote was quite clear from my response that this is "an impossibility, yes." So again, what point is Hannover trying to make other than irrelevant complaint about imaginary problem, I do not know.
Yes, we agree then that Tauber is lying when he claims '5-7 minutes'. However, to compare partial cremations to complete cremations is rather insincere to say the least (yes Bob, complete cremations today take 60-90 minutes).

You amazingly stated:
In our case a cremation of body allowing another to be introduced is a time when the remains of the first body fell through the grid or like at Theresienstadt - were pushed to the back of the muffle. Like it or not, but this is what is considered as a cremation of one body in our case, this determines capacity of the oven, not a complete cremation time but a cremation time in the first chamber.
No Bob, you are referring to partial cremations, like it or not. No one considers a partial cremation to be a complete cremation. "In our case"? No, in your case. This is truly astounding.

Bob, perhaps you do not comprehend what I said, English is clearly not your first language, you said:
I did not ask about malfunction etc., I asked precisely this: "Is Hannover claiming that cremations are maybe taking place in aerial photos since acc. to him crematoria did not smoke during operation?" Yes or No?
Yes, they could be taking place as disease prevention procedures stipulated. Revisionist have pointed out and apparently you missed, masses of "survivors" claim that smoke 'blackened the skies and fire erupted from the chimneys'. They claim that bodies were stacked outside in the open, they claim that those to be gassed were massed next to the alleged 'gas chambers' awaiting their turn, on & on. Of course none of this can shown to be fact. You really should learn what Revisionist research has revealed. You seem woefully behind.

Bob, this is entertaining:
Breakdown is on Hannover´s side since he said that Tauber cremated 8 corpses at once "in order to signal Allied aircraft with smoke" whereas the actual quote says he allegedly did it to have "a bigger fire emerging from the chimney."[3] Hannover is having problems with admission of his error.
I do appreciate the rather small amount of clarity you gave to my quote. I will in the future use that clarification. But again Bob, you ignore your own assertion which states that Tauber's effort would necessarily have created smoke. Remember, you say that the normal cremation process yielded smoke, but now you backtrack when Tauber claims to have inserted 8 corpses, which according to your thinking would have given off a veritable volcano of smoke. You are simply trapped in a belief you cannot back-up. You clearly have an unresolved problem to grapple with.

Now this is a another gem:
I merely pointed out that Hannover again wrongly quoted Tauber and instead of admission of his another error he produced this lovely response. Contrary to Hannover´s argument be built on this false quote, benches allegedly presented in alleged undressing room for victims are irrelevant for the issue of capacity of alleged gas chamber.
Bob, again it's obvious you're not reading what I post. Your "undressing room" is part of what Believers call a 'gas chamber'. With an alleged '2000 per batch' capacity, these dumb benches would have been a true impediment. My point stands. Please familiarize yourself with the standard 'holocaust' storyline, that would be most helpful when debating here.

Moving on, you said:
If Hannover can stop with his ignorance of my comments, he can read again in my comments that there is no such photo because crematoria were not in operation and thus not smoking. I noted that Hannover refused to explain his alleged phenomena and have no arguments against my arguments that soot was accumulate at the top of the chimneys by smoke. If he wants to see some smoking crematorium chimney, he can check the Hadamar crematorium chimney whose pictures "friedrichjansson" posted in the provided thread. Here a picture of the Hadamar oven which is obviously a Kori oven.
Bob, I believe you meant to say: 'If Hannover can stop quoting my ignorant statements'. :-) And as usual you ignore my response to the 'soot' canard, please re-read my post.
Also. let's again note that of all the endless photos of Auschwitz, you cannot find a single example where the crematoria chimneys are 'spewing & belching' smoke. Not one, Bob, not one. According to your pretzel logic all of these photos were then taken when there were no cremations taking place, a statistically absurd assertion Bob, regardless of a exterminationist or Revisionist position. The cremations were merely part of the disease abatement procedures in place, no one was gassed as is humorously claimed.

Keeping the ball rolling Bob, you said
Hannover´s objection about not explicitly mentioned Auschwitz is irrelevant since the missing injection of preheated air is precisely what was missing in Topf ovens at Auschwitz-Birkenau and they did not work with preheated air but with cold air and I hope that Hannover at least knows what is difference between preheated air and cold air. Actually nothing "fishy" since slower cremation process of corpses in concentration camps was hardly placed in Prüfer ´s mouth by his Soviet interrogators. Hannover´s link to fpp.co.uk is irrelevant, we are not speaking about civilian crematoria, but about crematoria at concentration camps which were different. Needless to say that smoke was problem even in civilian crematoria as Carlo Mattogno pointed out with relevant literature dated to 1944.
Irrelevant not. It is you Bob who tries to compare partial cremation facilities with complete cremation facilities. Hey, please review your own posts. And there is just no getting around it, Prufer in the relevant quote does not specify Auschwitz. Sorry, Bob. And I see nothing in Prufer's statement about the temperature of the air. I only read: "Naked flame could not come in contact with the coffin, and cremation was to be smoke and odour free". Get over it, Bob.

Fishy indeed given that big dog Prufer, according to you, would not have used his own manufactured 'smoke free ovens'. I have also seen no proof that Mattogno was actually comparing his smoking civilian ovens to the smoke free versions which Prufer designed. You shoot yourself in the foot (contradict) again when you state "we are not speaking about civilian crematoria", but you cite Mattogno's comparison to civilian facilities. Lovely.

And wrapping things up Bob, you said:
Hannover´ link to nonsenses from known Topf exhibition which is riddled with nonsenses like "crematoria resembling incinerators for animal carcasses" only illustrates his desperate position and contradicts his "no naked flames, smoke and odour free" quote. He of course posted these nonsenses only because they are from David Irving´s site, but in reality this comes from this exhibition. Hannover unable to find something better thus blindly accepted even exterminationists´ nonsenses he himself attacks so often.

If Hannover has a problem with the fact that crematoria chimneys smoked when in operation, he is challenged to produce his own study refuting not only literature on this subject which acc. to him probably lied, but mainly exhaustive research by Carlo Mattogno and available photos because he is as far as I know the only living person who is claiming that crematoria at Auschwitz did not smoke when in operation. So a study or analysis to back up this position is welcomed, at this time is false and unfounded.

So what arguments and evidence Hannover has to support his theory that crematoria did not emit smoke during their operation? Keep in mind the guidelines and tell us.
Indeed, there some absurd statements made at this exhibition, but there are some very revealing ones as well as I pointed out. I choose to separate the wheat from the chaff, not simply turn my head, ignore what is written, and say 'I can't see you', a la Mr. No Smoking Chimneys Photos Bob. :-)

Bob, until you show me photos of smoking Auschwitz chimneys you simply have nothing to stand on. Photos Bob, photos.
Again, you cite Mattogno's research which incorporates civilian facilities while you state that the crematorium under discussion were different than civilian facilities. What's it going to be, Bob? I'm assume you've heard of the phrase 'apples & oranges'.

As far as your deflective position that I believe the crematorium "did not [ever] emit smoke during their operation" is to ignore my stated position that there was some smoke upon initial firing-up of the cremation process, or in the case of malfunctions. It is you Bob, who appears desperate.

"Keep in mind the guidelines and tell us". Now that's rich. From the beginning of this debate you have resorted to RODOH-like insults, avoidance, and pedestrian sophistry. I believe you have a record of such behavior.

Here's your smoke, Bob. :-)
Image

The tide is turning.

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

User avatar
Moderator
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1660
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 9:23 am

Re: acclaimed "eyewitness" Henryk Tauber redux

Postby Moderator » 5 years 9 months ago (Sun Feb 09, 2014 2:14 pm)

Bob:
You have been warned about ad hominems. Hannover must oblige as well. Until your posts are free from such activities they will not be available for viewing.

I refer you to another example of such behavior:
Smoke from crematorium chimneys in aerial photos
M1
Only lies need to be shielded from debate, truth welcomes it.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9898
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: acclaimed "eyewitness" Henryk Tauber redux

Postby Hannover » 5 years 9 months ago (Sun Feb 09, 2014 2:30 pm)

Apologies for the edginess.

However, I suggest that our readers read and view this:
Smoking Crematory Chimney at Auschwitz: A Correction
Robert Bartec
https://codoh.com/library/document/3083/?lang=en

brief excerpts:
Also according to witness statements, the Birkenau crematories are said to have been in basically uninterrupted operation from May 1944 into the late summer of 1944, when the Nazis are said to have exterminated up to half a million Jews from Hungary and up to 70,000 Jews from the Lodz Ghetto.
At the same time, Allied reconnaissance airplanes took several air photos of the camp. Hence, if the witnesses’ claims were true, we would expect to see thick smoke emanating from at least some of the crematory chimneys on at least some of these photos. In his trail-blazing work on air photo evidence about the Holocaust – or rather the lack thereof – John C. Ball has reproduced several of these reconnaissance photos which had been released to the public by that time. He posited that none of them show any smoke-emitting crematory chimneys.3

Hence, as of this day there is not a single known air photo of Auschwitz-Birkenau showing smoke coming out of any of the crematories. Yet there are several showing smoke billowing from a limited area in the yard of Crematory V, as for instance also on the one shot three days later, on Aug. 23, 1944, and on one taken on July 8 of that year. Aerial photography is unable to prove that witness statements of profusely smoking crematory chimneys at Auschwitz-Birkenau are accurate. In fact, the absense of smoke in these photographs suggests just the opposite.
The tide is turning.

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


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests