evidence destroyed, but then evidence not destroyed / a classic from H-Industry spokesman 'Nessie'

[Hannover]

At another site 'holocaust' Industry representative 'Nessie' said, upon being asked to show excavated human remains of 1,250,000 Jews alleged to have been gassed at Auschwitz:

They were cremated and the ash disposed of.

So there we have a prime example of 'holocaust doublespeak'.
When it's convenient they say the evidence was destroyed, but then they contradict themselves by telling the gullible that tons of Jew human remains are right in front of their eyes.

Now, a little smoke & mirrors:

"alleged ash pond at Auschwitz"


"dried up ash pond at Auschwitz"


"Markers for the Krema III ash pond"


"Ash pond for Krema II at Birkenau"


So where are excavations and verification that there are ashes of Jews at Auschwitz?

This is too easy.

- Hannover


So called "holocaust eyewitnesses" making absurd, impossible, and contradictory claims is not the exception, but the rule.

Revisionists are just the messengers, the absurd impossibility of the laughable 'holocaust' storyline is the message.

[borjastick]

Just to put this into context, as I did with the claims of ash for Treblinka, 1,250,000 people would be in the region of 3,400 metric tonnes of ash!

To put that figure into some sort of context a wheat harvesting tractor pulled trailer as seen in this picture can carry about 10 tonnes. This depends on the country and the local regulations but for illustrating my point we'll go with 10.

That would mean about 340 of these loads being dumped in and around Auschwitz in the claimed pond location. Try to picture 340, or more, truck loads of a similar type of grainy material being dumped and yet they cannot show us any!

[Jurgen]

Just to put this into context, as I did with the claims of ash for Treblinka, 1,250,000 people would be in the region of 3,400 metric tonnes of ash!

To put that figure into some sort of context a wheat harvesting tractor pulled trailer as seen in this picture can carry about 10 tonnes. This depends on the country and the local regulations but for illustrating my point we'll go with 10.

That would mean about 340 of these loads being dumped in and around Auschwitz in the claimed pond location. Try to picture 340, or more, truck loads of a similar type of grainy material being dumped and yet they cannot show us any!

Is that 3,400 tonnes of ash just the body remains, or does it include ash from the coke,or whatever they use to burn the bodies?

[borjastick]

Just to put this into context, as I did with the claims of ash for Treblinka, 1,250,000 people would be in the region of 3,400 metric tonnes of ash!

To put that figure into some sort of context a wheat harvesting tractor pulled trailer as seen in this picture can carry about 10 tonnes. This depends on the country and the local regulations but for illustrating my point we'll go with 10.

That would mean about 340 of these loads being dumped in and around Auschwitz in the claimed pond location. Try to picture 340, or more, truck loads of a similar type of grainy material being dumped and yet they cannot show us any!

Is that 3,400 tonnes of ash just the body remains, or does it include ash from the coke,or whatever they use to burn the bodies?

Good question. I have often read about cremains being xlbs for an average adult and have always taken that to mean the human remains and not the ash from the fuel. I don't know the answer but I would suspect it means the human part only. Perhaps someone else can advise.

[Hektor]

If one assumes that they cremated the corpses of 10th of thousand deceased people there. They still would be required to do something with the ashes.

How much ash you can get from the coke also depends on the quality of the coke, but I guess it would be negligible. From Wiki:"Coke is a fuel with few impurities and a high carbon content, usually made from coal. It is the solid carbonaceous material derived from destructive distillation of low-ash, low-sulfur bituminous coal. Cokes made from coal are grey, hard, and porous."

I don't see anything on the pics that would convince a reasonable person that this was part of an "extermination site". But then the Holocaust industry was cautious conjuring up the "banality of evil" meme. They will see anything as a confirmation for their faith in the Holocaust.


From wiki again:

A pilgrimage is a journey or search of moral or spiritual significance. Typically, it is a journey to a shrine or other location of importance to a person's beliefs and faith, although sometimes it can be a metaphorical journey into someone's own beliefs. Many religions attach spiritual importance to particular places: the place of birth or death of founders or saints, or to the place of their "calling" or spiritual awakening, or of their connection (visual or verbal) with the divine, to locations where miracles were performed or witnessed, or locations where a deity is said to live or be "housed," or any site that is seen to have special spiritual powers. Such sites may be commemorated with shrines or temples that devotees are encouraged to visit for their own spiritual benefit: to be healed or have questions answered or to achieve some other spiritual benefit. A person who makes such a journey is called a pilgrim. As a common human experience, pilgrimage has been proposed as a Jungian archetype by Wallace Clift and Jean Dalby Clift.

While they avoid any traditionally religious or theistic overtones, the religious character of Auschwitz Pilgrimages can not be overlooked. They outrage or disgust displayed by Holocaust believers demonstrates the religious nature of their faith.

[Hieldner]

When it's convenient they say the evidence was destroyed, but then they contradict themselves by telling the gullible that tons of Jew human remains are right in front of their eyes.

Steven Spielberg tells us that the white sand at Auschwitz is actually Jew bones https://vid.me/HZs7

[Hektor]

When it's convenient they say the evidence was destroyed, but then they contradict themselves by telling the gullible that tons of Jew human remains are right in front of their eyes.

Steven Spielberg tells us that the white sand at Auschwitz is actually Jew bones https://vid.me/HZs7

Does that mean that "Jewish bones" do consist mostly of silicon dioxide?


I'm just wondering what else is going to be passed as evidence.

[PotPie]

Well, this looks like something a Revisionist may tackle if he had the funds to visit these alleged ash ponds and collect samples for laboratory analysis, after filming the sampling of course.

I wish I had the means; I'd do it myself.

[PotPie]

When it's convenient they say the evidence was destroyed, but then they contradict themselves by telling the gullible that tons of Jew human remains are right in front of their eyes.

Steven Spielberg tells us that the white sand at Auschwitz is actually Jew bones https://vid.me/HZs7

I've never seen this white sand close up, but I have seen what cremated remains look like. They are clearly distinct from sand. You can see bone chips.

[Hieldner]

As I understand it, a thorough investigation of the supposed burial grounds at Treblinka is prevented by the chief rabbi of Poland citing alleged Talmudic laws which prohibit digging up ashes of Jews. In this regard, Michael Hoffman delivers an exciting translation / interpretation of Baba Metzi’a 114b:

What we find is that only a human being can defile a grave and what we find in this tractate is that goyim or gentiles are not considered defilers of graves.

https://youtu.be/RZ-jLvhJYL0?t=14m45s
There are conflicting translations and interpretations, especially on this passage, though.

[Michael Hoffman]

To Heildner

The Talmud Bavli passage at issue is concerned, as you say, with the definition of a human being. The corpse of a human being can defile. The corpse of a goy (non-Jew) does not defile because it is not considered human, according to the halahca of Talmudic Judaism.

Bava Metzvia 114b.jpg (10.49 KiB) Viewed 2675 times

Talmud Bavli tractate Bava Metzia114b:

"The graves of Gentiles do not defile, for it is written, And ye my flock, the flock of my pastures, are men; only ye are designated ‘men.” [end quote]

This troubling statement is explained away with the usual pilpul.

Let him who has eyes to see do so.