Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread

[little grey rabbit]

No, I believe the lesson here is that burning bodies in Poland probably wouldn't be too big a problem, given how much wood is in the forests there, and that the wood wouldn't need to be seasoned to work.

Like everyone else in this thread, I too grew up with an open fire. Yet my experience was diametrically opposite vis a vis burning green wood.

We just didn't do. In fact even massive bush fires in Australia still seems to just burn off bark and leaves and tends to leave the living trees just standing.

Fortunately for us all the excellent Thomas Kues has examined the level of tree felling around Treblinka II using pre-war maps and found it to be absolutely minimal

http://www.inconvenienthistory.com/archive/2009/volume_1/number_2/tree_felling_at_treblinka.php

You might observe the September 1944 aerial photo and the 1936 map showing forest coverage.

I think that closes that debate.

 

[little grey rabbit]

A little more from the excellent Thomas Kues

“Wood seasoned or dried at a temperature of 100° [Fahrenheit] weighs about one-third less than green wood; for while some kinds will lose only about 25 per cent, there are others that will lose 50 per cent. As a cord of green wood will weigh on an average more than 4,000 pounds, every cord will contain some thirteen hundred pounds of water, or about one hundred and seventy gallons. This water must be raised to the boiling heat, and expelled by evaporation before the wood containing it can possibly burn. All the heat required for this purpose passes off in the latent state, and is lost to all useful purposes. The man, therefore, who burns green wood, loses precisely as much caloric, or in other words, of his wood, in every cord, as would be required to boil away 170 gallons of water. What part that would be, he can estimate for himself.
But, says the advocate of green wood, all the fluids of the living tree are not water. The sap holds in solution sugar, gum, starch, resin, &c., all of which are inflammable substances, or will burn. This is true, but none of these substances are lost when green wood is dried; all remain for the benefit of the fuel; on the contrary, none of these will burn until free from the water holding them in solution, and much of them is driven off by the heat required for that evaporation. View the matter then as we may, there is a loss in burning green wood.”24

Green wood from softwoods (conifers) – such as pine trees and fir, the predominant trees in Treblinka area – typically contain approximately 55% water by weight, which is, generally speaking, higher than the moisture content of hardwoods

 

[MG1962]

No, the lesson here is that the genius SS isn't going to expend the time and effort required to ignite fresh cut wood when there's a roaring bonfire made out of a pile o' dead Jews fifty feet away.

I think you are so cute to believe no one shared their fire. Once you have a fire started, you dont need to keep going through the same process to start a fire. Cause....well you have a fire going

 

[MG1962]

http://www.inconvenienthistory.com/archive/2009/volume_1/number_2/tree_felling_at_treblinka.php

You might observe the September 1944 aerial photo and the 1936 map showing forest coverage.

I think that closes that debate.

Wow you really will believe anything. Two images each 200 square meters and you think you can conclude all activity around a camp

 

[Wroclaw]

Bunny, Mühlenkamp has been writing on that stuff for the last several months. You need to keep up.

 

[kageki]

I think you now have MG1962 confused with kageki or Clayton Moore, who dodge questions as though they are allergic to them. But you were never good with names and faces, were you?

Your question itself was evasive because you know what I meant by physical possibility and not the moral possibility that people can commit murder.

Now I wonder if Germans really had emotional issues when they did something like this:

http://rodohforum.yuku.com/topic/11411/Hadamar-Liberated

After their 10,000th killing the SS men had a drinking orgy." Hamilton said. "They cleaned out the skulls of some of their victims and used them as drinking cups. Townspeople and former employees at the asylum testified to this.

What about the Russians? Did they have any emotional issues since they shot and killed nearly as much?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes#Soviet_Union

 

[Clayton Moore]

Your question itself was evasive because you know what I meant by physical possibility and not the moral possibility that people can commit murder.

Now I wonder if Germans really had emotional issues when they did something like this:


What about the Russians? Did they have any emotional issues since they shot and killed nearly as much?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes#Soviet_Union

The Germans convicted their own for crimes against detainees much less than murder. Why did they bother?
Unless of course they were implementing another grandiose scheme to deceive the Red Cross and the Catholic Church.

 

[Dogzilla]

Well that's odd. I am the one wearing a fedora and with the camera, taking a picture of the chimps, and MG1962, with somewhat unruly hair, looks completely different to that and has no camera. Your powers of discernment and observation do not impress.

I don't judge a man by the appearance of his avatar but by the content of his character. In that regard, you guys look alike.

 

[Dogzilla]

Will somebody please write "Starting a fire with fresh cut fire wood isn't more difficult than starting a fire with well seasoned fire wood." so I can nominate you for a stundie?

Or, here: Starting a fire with well seasoned fire wood is much easier than trying to start one with fresh cut wood.

Nominate ME for a stundie because what I just said was pretty stunning in your world.

 

[Wroclaw]

The Germans convicted their own for crimes against detainees much less than murder. Why did they bother?
Unless of course they were implementing another grandiose scheme to deceive the Red Cross and the Catholic Church.

What does the Catholic Church have to do with anything?

 

[Wroclaw]

Will somebody please write "Starting a fire with fresh cut fire wood isn't more difficult than starting a fire with well seasoned fire wood." so I can nominate you for a stundie?

Or, here: Starting a fire with well seasoned fire wood is much easier than trying to start one with fresh cut wood.

Nominate ME for a stundie because what I just said was pretty stunning in your world.

Nobody's saying it isn't easier to start a fire with seasoned wood. What we're saying is that it's still possible to use freshly cut wood to burn bodies, provided you have a good accelerant, like gasoline, and temperatures get high enough.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Nobody's saying it isn't easier to start a fire with seasoned wood. What we're saying is that it's still possible to use freshly cut wood to burn bodies, provided you have a good accelerant, like gasoline, and temperatures get high enough.

Full circle. Green wood laced with gasoline.

Give it up.


I'll be at the La Grange. Let me know when U freaking WTFU.

 

[TheRedWorm]

Have you ever built, lit and sustained a fire, Clayton?

 

[Clayton Moore]

Have you ever built, lit and sustained a fire, Clayton?

Not really. I've designed one. Minions did the grunt work.

 

[Wroclaw]

I know I could get into a lot of trouble over this, but here goes...

The Chimney Safety Institute of America reports that freshly cut wood is roughly 45% water.

Bear that in mind.

Wikipedia says that the human body is, bare minimum, 55% water.

Now: Go to the gas station and buy a gallon of gasoline, and put it in a metal can. Also get a pack of wooden matches.

Next: Find a clearing where fire can't get to anything close by — anything, you know, useful.

Step 3: Undress completely and then dowse yourself with gasoline.

Step 4: Now draw a match out of the box, and . . .

Know what? Not worth it.

 

[abaddon]

I know I could get into a lot of trouble over this, but here goes...

The Chimney Safety Institute of America reports that freshly cut wood is roughly 45% water.

Bear that in mind.

Wikipedia says that the human body is, bare minimum, 55% water.

Now: Go to the gas station and buy a gallon of gasoline, and put it in a metal can. Also get a pack of wooden matches.

Next: Find a clearing where fire can't get to anything close by — anything, you know, useful.

Step 3: Undress completely and then dowse yourself with gasoline.

Step 4: Now draw a match out of the box, and . . .

Know what? Not worth it.

To be fair, self immolation is not an unknown phenomenon.

Is CM claiming it is not possible?

 

[000063]

Full circle. Green wood laced with gasoline.

Give it up.


I'll be at the La Grange. Let me know when U freaking WTFU.

"Laced with gasoline"? Did they pour it on, or let it soak?

 

[LemmyCaution]

Your question itself was evasive because you know what I meant by physical possibility and not the moral possibility that people can commit murder.

This--another of your refusals to answer what was asked--is what is evasive, not my questions, which were in fact straightforward. Moral possibility is not what I posed. I asked 3 or 4 questions, not one of them probing moral dimensions.

By the way, this is the second or third time you tried putting words in my mouth, to make it appear that I argued or wrote something you wished I had. Doing so is an unattractive and unconvincing means of discussion. It signals to readers that you have weak arguments, as does your continued refusal to answer direct questions.

I did comment on the morality of mass extermination, but did not ask you about it. In fact, I also discussed the difficult technical matter of shooting thousands upon thousands and mentioned a number of logistical-technical issues, leaving out some others, such as how to manage "left behind" goods and possession, that the killers needed to innovate on. These sorts of considerations, and the evidence issues, led to my asking you questions about what you think occurred in terms of the shootings and why you conclude what you conclude.

As a reminder, here is what I asked and what you continue to duck, now saying your cowardice is due to something I didn't ask--about the morality involved! First:

what does not "necessarily" denying the open air shootings mean? Why "necessarily"? Did they occur or not, in what magnitude, and how do you know? Why do they "make sense" but not other forms of killing? Based on what evidence?

Later I asked you some similar questions:

I asked you, and you've been silent about this, on what basis you accept the open air shootings, what you think their scale was, and why they happened. These are the questions you keep avoiding answering.

And now to this bit of silliness.

Now I wonder if Germans really had emotional issues when they did something like this:

Well, that does seem like an indication of emotional problems. But, my opinions aside, the emotional problems of the members of the mobile killing units are well documented as was the reaction of the higher-ups to try to manage the emotional fallout and related difficulties the killers were subject to.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Will somebody please write "Starting a fire with fresh cut fire wood isn't more difficult than starting a fire with well seasoned fire wood." so I can nominate you for a stundie?

No, because I doubt anyone believes that. I, for example, in this thread am simply referring to the information in guides that say using seasoned, dried wood is the best method, because fires using green wood generate less heat, as much energy is used up drying the moisture in the wood and the resulting fire also generates noxious pollutants. Example:

If you try to burn green wood, the heat produced by combustion must dry the wood before it will burn, using up a large percentage of the available energy in the process. This results in less heat delivered to your home, and literally gallons of acidic water in the form of creosote deposited in your chimney.

Less efficient, poorer, more difficult: only in the loony tunes black/white world of negationism do such concepts connote impossibility.

I myself am not a campfire type but, upon reading deniers' claims a few years ago that fire cannot be started with fresh wood, I searched for agricultural agency, how-to, military, and other guides to starting fires and found that all agreed that green wood burns but, because of its high moisture content (IIRC from 50-70% or so water), with more difficulty than seasoned wood.

Perhaps all these guides are mistaken, or special rules apply when it comes to killing and disposing of the bodies of Jews. But no one has argued what you are suggesting.

I think that LGR has the best approach for deniers, one I highly recommend you also take advantage of: It is risible to think that green wood burns. But if it does burn, then somebody named Kues or Dahl or something once said that not enough timber of that sort was cut down at Treblinka . . . and if Roberto Muehlenkamp can show different, then the Moscow Forgery Factory is behind it all. The advantage of this approach is that you need not tie yourself to any coherent position at all--and there is always forgery as a last resort.

 

[Clayton Moore]

No, because I doubt anyone believes that. I, for example, in this thread am simply referring to the information in guides that say using seasoned, dried wood is the best method, because fires using green wood generate less heat, as much energy is used up drying the moisture in the wood and the resulting fire also generates noxious pollutants. Example: Less efficient, poorer, more difficult: only in the loony tunes black/white world of negationism do such concepts connote impossibility.

I myself am not a campfire type but, upon reading deniers' claims a few years ago that fire cannot be started with fresh wood, I searched for agricultural agency, how-to, military, and other guides to starting fires and found that all agreed that green wood burns but, because of its high moisture content (IIRC from 50-70% or so water), with more difficulty than seasoned wood.

Perhaps all these guides are mistaken, or special rules apply when it comes to killing and disposing of the bodies of Jews. But no one has argued what you are suggesting.

I think that LGR has the best approach for deniers, one I highly recommend you also take advantage of: It is risible to think that green wood burns. But if it does burn, then somebody named Kues or Dahl or something once said that not enough timber of that sort was cut down at Treblinka . . . and if Roberto Muehlenkamp can show different, then the Moscow Forgery Factory is behind it all. The advantage of this approach is that you need not tie yourself to any coherent position at all--and there is always forgery as a last resort.

Maybe some day the LemmyCautions of the believers will "get it" that when their truths become impossible or almost impossible, such as green wood being feasible and hot enough to cremate bodies in a timely/expedient manner, other truths are dependent on that failed truth.