The Pyres of Dresden

[Nessie]

The photos of the pyres at Dresden and Ohrdruf, prove that a pyre, set with wood below rails and corpses on the rails, once set alight, will burn without having to add additional wood or other fuel, to produce a partial cremation, with some ashes and some body parts. A mix of ashes and body parts are what was found buried at the AR camps.

This represents the fundamental misunderstanding Nessie has.

Here is what is true:

• Corpses being cremated can and do, eventually, become combustible once the water has evaporated and the remaining fat becomes something of an accelerant, making the corpse have something of a candle-like 'wicking effect', producing heat/energy that can assist in the cremation of other corpses in mass pyres.

But here is where Nessie's big fail lies:

• Before this 'wicking effect' (combustion phase) can occur, the corpse has to release/evaporate its water (evaporation phase), which itself also carries heat away from other corpses upon evaporation. Moreover, for the combustion phase, the energy released by each corpse would have been minimized given the widely-reported emaciation of most [Jewish] corpses. This makes a huge difference since almost all of the combustion energy per corpse comes from fat (but even with average/normal corpses, it only reduces the wood needed by ~30-40%). Overall, the lack of body fat in Jewish corpses easily cancels-out any of the moderate gains in efficiency that could otherwise be observed in mass cremation vs. single cremation, keeping the requirement of ~300-500 kg of wood required per corpse (depending on dry vs. green wood and other factors) intact.

In other words, yes, you can barbecue a steak and the fat will ignite/combust, charring your steak. And if you have multiple steaks on the grill on top of one another, the flaming fat of steaks underneath can assist in the cooking ("cremation") of the other steak(s). But the water evaporation of the steaks on bottom will also have slowed down the cooking of the other steaks. And if you have steaks which have been modified to have near-zero fat content, the powerful assistive impact of fat combustion is cancelled out. All of this is calculated/measured/discussed in-detail in Mattogno's works, with authoritative references, and further reinforced by the more recent peer-reviewed research on outdoor pig cremations which suggests an estimate of ~300-500kg per corpse may actually be too low.

All in all, it is inescapable that your "set it and forget it" nonsense has been 100% debunked. All of the science of thermodynamics and all of the evidence of alleged cremations at AR camps works against you.

You cannot claim to 'care about evidence' and yet put your head so deeply in the sand on this matter.

The Dresden and Ohrdruf pyres prove that enough heat comes from piling wood under metal rails, to evaporate moisture and cause body fat to catch fire.

[Nessie]

....

Ok, thanks for clarifying, and I presume this is were the two sides usually clash and find it extremely hard to go fruitfully any further, the side presenting the orthodoxy- as you state usually accepting that "Witness evidence does not require to be corroborated by scientific data" while the revisionist side does not, is that somewhat fairly summed up?

No. Witness evidence becomes more reliable, when it is corroborated by other evidence, such as "scientific data", but it is not dependent on it. Here, so-called revisionists, whose agenda is to disbelieve, work "scientific data" to contradict the witnesses, to support their disbelief. That is called the logical fallacy of argument from incredulity.

The fact is that we do not have "scientific data" about the pyres. Instead, we have some photos and witness estimations. That so-called revisionists, who are biased, cannot square what they think of the data, with the evidence of the use of mass pyres, does not prove, no mass pyres. It is indisputable that there were mass pyres at Dresden and Ohrdruf, and so-called revisionists cannot work out how they worked.

Must say I initially probably tend more to easily understand the latter`s position in this case, but also wonder, given that I at least could in general agree to a degree with your mentioned statement and actually fully with your earlier one " As a generalisation, yes, but, there are circumstances where witnesses can be regarded as reliable, without corroboration from other evidence, so it is not a hard and fast rule"

-are the 2 sides really that far apart or at least saying at times the same/similar thing only from different angles?

If attempting at finding somewhat a middle ground:

Revisionists (in my experience at least) can be made to stretch out of their comfortzone to agreeing that indeed:
witness-testimony in certain situations is/can be entirely true and valid standing alone even without any scientific proof (given also naturally that at times it is simply physically impossible to get the latter).

And those from the other side to agree (as you did) that "The witnesses, due to the known, studied, flaws of memory, recall and estimation, are not reliable in the detail..".

So the devil lays in if there is any possibility to find somewhat of an objective fair middleground to define exactly a) where these "certain situation" start/end and b) same with the "details".., would you agree?

Interestingly what without problem apparently all sides agree on is that whatever rule may be found, it always fairly must as you state apply to all equally :
"The rules of evidence do apply equally."

Meaning -and much /all of course probably is difficult/impossible to get to the core of in theory, but needs to be tested/tried out in concrete examples- here whatever we (if ) find as middleground for the value of un-corroborated witnesses, applies to all witnesses equally, both sides, i.e. (in principle, devil of course in the detail) just as much for witnesses apparently testifying for mass-murder at the AR-camps/Auschwitz (f.ex. Wiernek, etc.) and those who testified that no mass murder happened (f.ex. Kristoffersen, etc.), we need to have an equal standard measure how to filter the wheat from the chaff, for as all agree both can-and probably are to certain degree- flawed. And I think without much problem all sides could agree that intimidation/coercion (or even outright torture) is entirely impermissible in any fair judicial/historiographical setting.

Could you stretch to agreeing to this middle-ground so far?

No. Wiernik was an eyewitness to what happened inside TII. There is no eyewitness to what happened inside TII, any other AR camp, or the A-B Kremas, so you have no witnesses who disagree with Wiernik, etc.

Wiernik is corroborated by every single other eyewitness from TII, plus documents and other evidence pertinent to the operation of the camp. He gets details wrong and he describes some things in ways that seem odd, but that is normal for a witness recollecting events he saw some time previously. By all court, historian and journalist understanding of corroboration and recall, Wiernik is telling the truth and he is reasonably accurate.

[HansHill]

In what way is an area of 2 hectares, up to 7m deep, where buried cremated remains were located, not enough?

You can't be serious?

Well I suppose you are. Because Nessie, if you are claiming there were ~800,000 people partially cremated and buried, and then the dig fails to find ~800,000 partially cremated corpses, then your position isn't supported.

Anyway this is all off-topic and has been explained to you adinfinitum.

[Nessie]

....

Ok, thanks for clarifying, and I presume this is were the two sides usually clash and find it extremely hard to go fruitfully any further, the side presenting the orthodoxy- as you state usually accepting that "Witness evidence does not require to be corroborated by scientific data" while the revisionist side does not, is that somewhat fairly summed up?

Not really. As a general rule, witnesses do not need to be corroborated by "scientific" evidence, but it is better if they are. So-called revisionists think that is essential that the witnesses are corroborated by the "science", as they construct their arguments that the "science" contradicts them and proves they are all lying.

Must say I initially probably tend more to easily understand the latter`s position in this case, but also wonder, given that I at least could in general agree to a degree with your mentioned statement and actually fully with your earlier one " As a generalisation, yes, but, there are circumstances where witnesses can be regarded as reliable, without corroboration from other evidence, so it is not a hard and fast rule"

The simplest corroboration is when one witness corroborates another. But, that can result in two people making dubious claims, such as they were kidnapped by aliens and taken to another plant. Their corroboration fails, because they have made claims that are not physically possible. So-called revisionists claim that gassings, graves and mass cremations are impossible, and then claim that means the witnesses are all lying. The problem with that, is that digging mass graves, setting mass pyres and building gas chambers is well within German design and engineering abilities. So it is not as if the witnesses are making physically impossible claims.

Yes, some witnesses make claims about the details, that appear to be physically impossible, such as thousands fitting inside a gas chamber. Or the revisionists cannot work out how the gas chambers were vented, or how so many corpses fitted inside the mass graves, and they then claim physical impossibility. But that does not mean, therefore the gas chambers, pyres and mass graves are physical impossibilities.

-are the 2 sides really that far apart or at least saying at times the same/similar thing only from different angles?

We are very far apart. Historians use evidence to determine what happened. So-called revisionists argue that history cannot have happened and then fail to evidence what did. They produce an inconclusive non-history, the opposite to how history is normally presented.

If attempting at finding somewhat a middle ground:

Revisionists (in my experience at least) can be made to stretch out of their comfortzone to agreeing that indeed:
witness-testimony in certain situations is/can be entirely true and valid standing alone even without any scientific proof (given also naturally that at times it is simply physically impossible to get the latter).

And those from the other side to agree (as you did) that "The witnesses, due to the known, studied, flaws of memory, recall and estimation, are not reliable in the detail..".

So the devil lays in if there is any possibility to find somewhat of an objective fair middleground to define exactly a) where these "certain situation" start/end and b) same with the "details".., would you agree?

If the so-called revisionists agreed to learn about witness recall, memory and behaviour, then they would reach a better understanding of the witnesses. They do not want to do that, because admitting witnesses mis-remember, make mistakes, get estimations wrong and that those factors explain their claims, rather than they all lied, would end their main support for their beliefs.

There is no middle ground. The so-called revisionists ignore all that is known about witnesses, as they claim 100% of the Nazis and Jews, who worked inside the AR camps, Chelmno and A-B Kremas lied. Whereas, historians and other investigators have determined that they are generally being truthful, though not always that accurate.

Interestingly what without problem apparently all sides agree on is that whatever rule may be found, it always fairly must as you state apply to all equally :
"The rules of evidence do apply equally."

Meaning -and much /all of course probably is difficult/impossible to get to the core of in theory, but needs to be tested/tried out in concrete examples- here whatever we (if ) find as middleground for the value of un-corroborated witnesses, applies to all witnesses equally, both sides, i.e. (in principle, devil of course in the detail) just as much for witnesses apparently testifying for mass-murder at the AR-camps/Auschwitz (f.ex. Wiernek, etc.) and those who testified that no mass murder happened (f.ex. Kristoffersen, etc.), we need to have an equal standard measure how to filter the wheat from the chaff, for as all agree both can-and probably are to certain degree- flawed. And I think without much problem all sides could agree that intimidation/coercion (or even outright torture) is entirely impermissible in any fair judicial/historiographical setting.

Could you stretch to agreeing to this middle-ground so far?

I do not see how there is a middle ground. Wiernik was an eyewitness, Kristofferson was not. How can there be a middle ground between them? If a witness is tortured and the evidence they provide is corroborated by other evidence that proves the testimony they gave, under torture, was truthful, is there a middle ground there?

[Nessie]

Nessie is derailing the thread with false and fallacious arguments. A brief response:

"No photo shows anyone at the pyres. They are not being tended." False. Some of the photos do show dozens of people around the pyres. And if fuel was not added to the pyres over time, they would have piled the bodies directly on top of the wood. The only reason for the grill design was to add fuel over time.

Which photos are they? There is no photo of anyone doing anything to a burning pyre, such as throwing more wood on to it. There is also no report of that happening.

"At the AR camps, it was done to prevent body counts [...]" Nonsense that only Nessie believes. Practically every history of the Holocaust says that cremation was used to prevent anyone from discovering that it had happened, thus eliminating the burden of proving that there were bodies. If they weren't fully cremated, there would have to be millions of partially-cremated bodies yet to be found.

The way the Nazis tried to prevent anyone from discovering what had happened at the AR camps, was to exhume the graves and cremate as many corpses as possible, then mix the remains back into the ground, plan over that ground and leave the sites guarded by Ukrainian SS. Once of the consequences of the cremations, which would suit the Nazis, is that they made body counts impossible.

"Witnesses to the AR cremations, reported that the pyre was set, lit and then left to burn for many hours, till they went out, and the remains were buried." If this statement was true, it would simply be another demonstrative proof that the witnesses are untrustworthy. Human bodies need fuel to burn. They can not burn themselves.

Once the fat in a human body has caught fire, it will burn. As seen at Ohrdruf, the cremation is incomplete, but if those corpses were pulled off the pyres and buried in the ground, along with the ashes, to further decay, then the mix that Kola found with the borehole samples at Belzec, would be found. If, as was also reported for Belzec, those corpses were rendered before being buried, then that further explains what was found.

"The Dresden pyres, as shown in the photos and from witness descriptions, were more thorough [...]" Opposite world. Witnesses to both claim the bodies were reduced to ash. Only the holocaust witnesses claim the bones were ground down in mills, then made to disappear entirely.

You need to stop taking witnesses literally. The physical and forensic evidence, from excavations uncovering identifiable body parts and partially cremated remains, is that many of the corpses were not reduced to ash and they certainly did not disappear.

"The remians of the pyre at Ohrdruf, shows what was likely left, from a burn at the AR camps." Lmao, this is idiocy. Wood would not be piled on top of the remains after cremation.

I did not say that wood was piled on top of the remains, where did you imagine that from? Ohrdruf shows what a pyre would look like, once the fire had gone out. It proves that even a small pyre could generate enough heat to cause metal rails to distort.

"That claim is not backed up by the Dresden and Ohrdruf photos, which show how the wood is set alight under the corpses, the fire spreads to the corpses, which then burn down to some ashes and larger body parts." False. The furthest-along photos we see of a pyre at Dresden show that the pile of bodies was 0% reduced in height, indicating that the bodies were 0% cremated at that time. We do observe that fire ignited in the corpses. Obviously this is because there was flammable material there: straw and clothing.

The Dresden photos show pyres as they started to catch fire. The wood underneath is well ablaze. The corpses are steaming as the heat causes evaporation and yes, it is likely the clothing that has started to catch fire, where flames are seen on the sides of the pyres. Given more time, the fat in the corpses and any flammable gasses, will also catch fire. Then there will be a full-blown blaze.

"Your argument that because you cannot work out, based on an experiment and your thoughts, therefore it did not happen, is LOGICALLY FLAWED." I have long wondered how Holocaust Believers would respond to a definitive, scientific proof that outdoor cremation was impossible as claimed. Nessie's response is rank denial.

"According to so-called revisionists, this must be fake, as a BBQ cannot catch fire, causing the meat to burn." Notice how grilled meat never cremates itself? Now imagine 50 kg of fresh meat with organs and bones.

You have not proved outdoor cremations are impossible, as claimed. Dresden and Ohrdruf are part of the evidence that they were possible. You can see the pyres and yet you still refuse to believe.

[Callafangers]

The photos of the pyres at Dresden and Ohrdruf, prove that a pyre, set with wood below rails and corpses on the rails, once set alight, will burn without having to add additional wood or other fuel, to produce a partial cremation, with some ashes and some body parts. A mix of ashes and body parts are what was found buried at the AR camps.

This represents the fundamental misunderstanding Nessie has.

Here is what is true:

• Corpses being cremated can and do, eventually, become combustible once the water has evaporated and the remaining fat becomes something of an accelerant, making the corpse have something of a candle-like 'wicking effect', producing heat/energy that can assist in the cremation of other corpses in mass pyres.

But here is where Nessie's big fail lies:

• Before this 'wicking effect' (combustion phase) can occur, the corpse has to release/evaporate its water (evaporation phase), which itself also carries heat away from other corpses upon evaporation. Moreover, for the combustion phase, the energy released by each corpse would have been minimized given the widely-reported emaciation of most [Jewish] corpses. This makes a huge difference since almost all of the combustion energy per corpse comes from fat (but even with average/normal corpses, it only reduces the wood needed by ~30-40%). Overall, the lack of body fat in Jewish corpses easily cancels-out any of the moderate gains in efficiency that could otherwise be observed in mass cremation vs. single cremation, keeping the requirement of ~300-500 kg of wood required per corpse (depending on dry vs. green wood and other factors) intact.

In other words, yes, you can barbecue a steak and the fat will ignite/combust, charring your steak. And if you have multiple steaks on the grill on top of one another, the flaming fat of steaks underneath can assist in the cooking ("cremation") of the other steak(s). But the water evaporation of the steaks on bottom will also have slowed down the cooking of the other steaks. And if you have steaks which have been modified to have near-zero fat content, the powerful assistive impact of fat combustion is cancelled out. All of this is calculated/measured/discussed in-detail in Mattogno's works, with authoritative references, and further reinforced by the more recent peer-reviewed research on outdoor pig cremations which suggests an estimate of ~300-500kg per corpse may actually be too low.

All in all, it is inescapable that your "set it and forget it" nonsense has been 100% debunked. All of the science of thermodynamics and all of the evidence of alleged cremations at AR camps works against you.

You cannot claim to 'care about evidence' and yet put your head so deeply in the sand on this matter.

The Dresden and Ohrdruf pyres prove that enough heat comes from piling wood under metal rails, to evaporate moisture and cause body fat to catch fire.

It looks like you need to read my above-quoted post again, Nessie. Yes, fires get hot. Yes, fat catches fire -- this is fully accounted for in my above post. Read it again. Then again.

[Nessie]

This represents the fundamental misunderstanding Nessie has.

Here is what is true:

• Corpses being cremated can and do, eventually, become combustible once the water has evaporated and the remaining fat becomes something of an accelerant, making the corpse have something of a candle-like 'wicking effect', producing heat/energy that can assist in the cremation of other corpses in mass pyres.

But here is where Nessie's big fail lies:

What follows is your opinion, based on what you think happens. It is what you use to prop up your argument from incredulity.

• Before this 'wicking effect' (combustion phase) can occur, the corpse has to release/evaporate its water (evaporation phase), which itself also carries heat away from other corpses upon evaporation.

We see that happening at Dresden, where the pyres steam as the wood fire heats the pyre up.

Moreover, for the combustion phase, the energy released by each corpse would have been minimized given the widely-reported emaciation of most [Jewish] corpses. This makes a huge difference since almost all of the combustion energy per corpse comes from fat (but even with average/normal corpses, it only reduces the wood needed by ~30-40%). Overall, the lack of body fat in Jewish corpses easily cancels-out any of the moderate gains in efficiency that could otherwise be observed in mass cremation vs. single cremation, keeping the requirement of ~300-500 kg of wood required per corpse (depending on dry vs. green wood and other factors) intact.[/list]

Witnesses to the AR camp pyres reported that it could be difficult to get some corpses to burn, but not female corpses.

You do not know if decomposition under pressure, which would cause body fluids and gasses to be released, would not make combustion easier.

In other words, yes, you can barbecue a steak and the fat will ignite/combust, charring your steak. And if you have multiple steaks on the grill on top of one another, the flaming fat of steaks underneath can assist in the cooking ("cremation") of the other steak(s). But the water evaporation of the steaks on bottom will also have slowed down the cooking of the other steaks. And if you have steaks which have been modified to have near-zero fat content, the powerful assistive impact of fat combustion is cancelled out. All of this is calculated/measured/discussed in-detail in Mattogno's works, with authoritative references, and further reinforced by the more recent peer-reviewed research on outdoor pig cremations which suggests an estimate of ~300-500kg per corpse may actually be too low.

All in all, it is inescapable that your "set it and forget it" nonsense has been 100% debunked. All of the science of thermodynamics and all of the evidence of alleged cremations at AR camps works against you.

You cannot claim to 'care about evidence' and yet put your head so deeply in the sand on this matter.

The Dresden and Ohrdruf pyres prove that enough heat comes from piling wood under metal rails, to evaporate moisture and cause body fat to catch fire.

It looks like you need to read my above-quoted post again, Nessie. Yes, fires get hot. Yes, fat catches fire -- this is fully accounted for in my above post. Read it again. Then again.

You need to look at what is evidenced to have happened, then look again. Dresden and Ohrdruf prove that pyres, set by placing wood under metal rails and corpses on top, work, at least to get partial cremations. The heat generated by the small Ohrdruf pyre was so much, it caused metal rails to bend. A bigger pyre would generate far more heat.

Heat will cause the corpses to burn, that is why, no matter the fat or liquid content of a body, if it is caught in a major fire, trapped in a car, or a house, or even clothing doused in petrol, it will burn. The evidence is that you have overestimated how much wood was needed to start a pyre and get the corpses burning. Look again at the Dresden and Ohrdruf pyres and how much wood was needed to get the corpses to burn.

[HansHill]

partial cremations.

The whole reason you need this gas-bury-dig-cremate-rebury fiasco in the first place is to obscure the fact you don't have ~1,500,000 bodies where you need them.

Retreating to "partial cremations" leaves us with the realistic expectation of finding 1,500,000 partially cremated corpses in 1945 where you say they should be. Again, and to underscore this for those reading who will understand it unlike you who refuses to understand anything, the examining judge Lukaszkiewicz said the opposite:

[Nessie]

partial cremations.

The whole reason you need this gas-bury-dig-cremate-rebury fiasco in the first place is to obscure the fact you don't have ~1,500,000 bodies where you need them.

That is merely your opinion. I say that the huge areas of disturbed ground found that AR camps and Chelmno are where all those corpses were buried. You minimise how much ground there is and fail to evidence a volume of disturbed ground that is far too small to contain all the corpses.

Retreating to "partial cremations" leaves us with the realistic expectation of finding 1,500,000 partially cremated corpses in 1945 where you say they should be. Again, and to underscore this for those reading who will understand it unlike you who refuses to understand anything, the examining judge Lukaszkiewicz said the opposite:

There are photos of TII, from 1945, showing identifiable human bones. Lukaszkiewicz reported huge areas of disturbed ground containing ashes, cremains, decomposing body parts and bones. He reported that there were no mass graves, of whole corpses to be found, such was the thoroughness of the Nazi cover up and destruction of evidence.

The physical, forensic, photographic and eyewitness evidence all corroborate. The Nazis dug huge mass graves, buried the gassed, then they exhumed and burnt as many corpses as they could.

[HansHill]

...Lukaszkiewicz reported....

At the risk of going off topic and since you've latched onto Lukaszkiewicz I'll stick with him and Treblinka for now: How many of the ~800,000 partially cremated corpses were reported?

X / 800,000

Solve for X.

[Nessie]

...Lukaszkiewicz reported....

At the risk of going off topic and since you've latched onto Lukaszkiewicz I'll stick with him and Treblinka for now: How many of the ~800,000 partially cremated corpses were reported?

X / 800,000

Solve for X.

He did not quantify the corpses. Instead, like Kola, Haimi and C S-C, he quantified the areas of disturbed ground they found. That evidence corroborates witness evidence of large areas being excavated at the camps.

Back on topic, there is witness and photographic evidence of mass pyres at Dresden, but you still do not believe. Do you honestly think that the Nazis, as they are the only source of evidence, would make up fake pyres?

[HansHill]

He did not quantify the corpses.

Thank you Nessie. This supports the Revisionist position, I'm finished with you now so you can get back to your other discussions.

[Nessie]

He did not quantify the corpses.

Thank you Nessie. This supports the Revisionist position, I'm finished with you now so you can get back to your other discussions.

[bombsaway]

He did not quantify the corpses.

Thank you Nessie. This supports the Revisionist position, I'm finished with you now so you can get back to your other discussions.

Also Lukaszkiewicz:

In the northwestern section of the area, the surface is covered for about 2 hectares by a mixture of ashes and sand. In this mixture, one finds countless human bones, often still covered with tissue remains, which are in a condition of decomposition. During the inspection, which I made with the assistance of an expert in forensic medicine, it was determined that the ashes are without any doubt of human origin (remains of cremated human bones).

Fully in line with the revisionist position, several football fields covered in partially cremated human remains, nothing to see here. Moving on...

Well I'd say you can't say Lukaszkiewicz confirms revisionism, if you're going to say statements like this are utter lies.

[Nessie]

Two hectares, up to 7m deep. That is a total volume of 140,000m3, or the same as 56 Olympic sized swimming pools. But, according to so-called revisionists, that is not space for there to be multiple mass graves, despite GPR evidence of multiple pits in that area. To be a so-called revisionist, you have to be determined to not believe the overwhelming evidence of mass graves, and pyres.