The Holocaust Thread - The Great Debate Between Affirmers, Revisionists and Deniers

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
From Finnish National Archives, a book called "Prisoners and Internees", page 193.

1719739374693.png


Yandex translation:

1719739385069.png


That's right, according to mr. Raskin, Finns put 100 jews in a ship, just so Germans could sink it in the sea. The most economic Holocaust method so far I've seen.
 
From Finnish National Archives, a book called "Prisoners and Internees", page 193.

View attachment 6139785

Yandex translation:

View attachment 6139787

That's right, according to mr. Raskin, Finns put 100 jews in a ship, just so Germans could sink it in the sea. The most economic Holocaust method so far I've seen.
It's on par with the multitude of wood and petrol that the Germans didn't have enough of and didn't benefit their war effort in even the slightest way towards victory. But hey, Biden and Trump could at least agree on even more pandering to the jews.
 
As I said before (it seems you are hallucinating responses from me) , open pits are less efficient than contained burning. I was being generous in saying we could use open pit figures to determine total fuel consumption. You get this right?

You said the numbers in the 1904 survey which I believe were 2:1, wood to weight ratio belied known scientific laws. If you can definitively say this, what's the reasonable lowest ratio?
Why are Jews so flammable but their shoes completely immune to fire?
 
Why are Jews so flammable but their shoes completely immune to fire?
The suggestion that corpses were burned in full clothing with shoes being recovered is not supported by witness testimony, other than maybe this single testimony - which to be honest is unclear. Assuming that was the meaning here, a single uncorroborated testimony isn't enough to completely change the narrative (which is that the corpses were stripped before burning). It's possible that some people were buried in their clothes and then never dug up again and burned.
 
The suggestion that corpses were burned in full clothing with shoes being recovered is not supported by witness testimony, other than maybe this single testimony - which to be honest is unclear. Assuming that was the meaning here, a single uncorroborated testimony isn't enough to completely change the narrative (which is that the corpses were stripped before burning). It's possible that some people were buried in their clothes and then never dug up again and burned.
Crazy that the Nazis were so secretive about the Holocaust that it's impossible to find written orders of the extermination but they didn't bother to burn the little shoes. Those whacky Germans doing the most ridiculous things.

Do you have a pair of little shoes on hand in case you have to convince a goyim of the Holocaust?

Did you even watch the link?

Did you see how much wood was required to "cremate" a single leg of lamb in the open burning pit style alleged by Holocaust propagandists?
Dean used 135 lbs of wood to cremate a 12.5 lbs leg of lamb.
That doesn't equal 2:1 by my calculations.

So it's 11:1 to not even fully cremate that leg of lamb in a Holocaust burning pit.

There was a sizable chunk of meat left surrounded by coal and ash shielding it. It's fair to assume it would have taken quite a lot more wood to finish the job. A processed piece of meat loses between 10 to 30% of its water content, making the numbers Dean arrived at overly charitable.

Now according to Holocaust propagandists, bodies were stacked two meters tall onto the grills, so you would have to burn through the lower bodies first to even start reaching the upper ones. All the charred remains on the grill would not only keep the upper bodies further away from the fire but also shield them from the heat. Since it's an open pit with a grill, you are not reaching temperatures high enough to combust the corpses. The alleged Holocaust setup is a far less effective setup than Dean's leg of lamb cremation experiment.

It's fair to assume the wood-to-corpse ratio would be substantially higher than Dean's leg of lamb results.

P.S.
Your 2:1 ratio is utterly incorrect. That's what it takes to roast a pig, not cremate a human.
If you roast a whole pig weighing around 50 lbs over an open fire, it takes at least 6 hours and uses 100 lbs of wood to roast it, not turn it to ash.
 
Last edited:
Dean used 135 lbs of wood to cremate a 12.5 lbs leg of lamb.
That doesn't equal 2:1 by my calculations
Sure I imagine one can burn things at different efficiencies based on method used. I don't see why the people doing the study I quoted from would lie but probably there are other studies to look at it.
they didn't bother to burn the little shoes
Why would they lol. Shoes can be reused or recycled.
 
I don't see why the people doing the study I quoted from would lie but probably there are other studies to look at it.
The efficiency of the burning pits described by Holocaust propagandists is worse than 11:1.

A 2:1 wood-to-meat ratio gives you a perfectly roasted pig. Do you really need a study to understand that humans aren't magic fuel?
Did the Nazis eat all those perfectly roasted Jews?

In an Indian funeral pyre, the corpse is always in contact with the embers since it rests on the wood itself, making it far more efficient than the metal grill method described by Holocaust propagandists. Being further away from the fire means less efficiency.
I hope you don't need a study for this fact.

The efficiency of an Indian funeral pyre is around a 4:1 wood-to-corpse ratio, again, far more efficient than the method described by Holocaust propagandists.

This makes it painfully obvious that the study you keep referring to is nothing but nonsense.
 
The efficiency of the burning pits described by Holocaust propagandists is worse than 11:1.

A 2:1 wood-to-meat ratio gives you a perfectly roasted pig. Do you really need a study to understand that humans aren't magic fuel?
Did the Nazis eat all those perfectly roasted Jews?

In an Indian funeral pyre, the corpse is always in contact with the embers since it rests on the wood itself, making it far more efficient than the metal grill method described by Holocaust propagandists. Being further away from the fire means less efficiency.
I hope you don't need a study for this fact.

The efficiency of an Indian funeral pyre is around a 4:1 wood-to-corpse ratio, again, far more efficient than the method described by Holocaust propagandists.

This makes it painfully obvious that the study you keep referring to is nothing but nonsense.
No offense man, but I have no faith in your judgement. Remember when you pre determined that the pipes at the Dachau gas chamber were fake and then avoided all discussion about that point when challenged?
 
No offense man, but I have no faith in your judgement. Remember when you pre determined that the pipes at the Dachau gas chamber were fake and then avoided all discussion about that point when challenged?
Those are real pipes and I never claimed otherwise.

I saw your lack of engagement with the DQ as a quiet admission of defeat, but it seems you are back and ready to rumble.

Explain the whole procedure of how they would have gassed people in the Brausebad.
Start with the Jews lining up in front of the building and explain it step by step.
I would be happy with that.
You can also just admit you are unable to come up with a rational scenario.


You are the one who claims it's a real gas chamber so please elaborate.
 
Those are real pipes and I never claimed otherwise.
You said they were scary/ just pipe joints, why?


About that, you never answered why they built a fake gas chamber they never used. Why is that?
Because your question assumes it was a fake gas chamber. I can't answer a question I don't agree with, eg how you couldn't answer a question like, Bonesjones, why do you use chocolate mousse in your spaghetti rather than marinara sauce?
 
Because your question assumes it was a fake gas chamber. I can't answer a question I don't agree with, eg how you couldn't answer a question like, Bonesjones, why do you use chocolate mousse in your spaghetti rather than marinara sauce?

Killing people on a mass scale through poison gas never took place in the Dachau concentration camp. It remains unexplained as to why the SS never used the operational gas chamber for this purpose.

So why did they build a fake gas chamber?

to answer your question (which is the answer to my question):

you wouldn't because the premise itself is ridiculous.
 
Will you answer my question if I answer yours?
Sure, what's your question? Questions have question marks btw

So why did they build a fake gas chamber?

to answer your question (which is the answer to my question):

you wouldn't because the premise itself is ridiculous.
What if I asked you something that wasn't true but not ridiculous, eg why do you eat candy every day?
 
Another admission of failure. You've lost every argument you've attempted for years on end. How does that make you feel?
I feel fine, because not you or anyone can answer a question honestly if they don't agree with the premise, eg why do you eat candy every day
 
Back
Top Bottom