Clarification [Cremation]

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
Post Reply
User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 8753
Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 21:11
Location: Poland

Re: Clarification [Cremation]

#136

Post by wm » 17 Nov 2017, 15:33

According to this:
Mumbai's suburban rail network [...] suffers from some of the most severe overcrowding in the world [...] at densities up to 16 people/m2.

User avatar
wbell
Member
Posts: 161
Joined: 24 Oct 2017, 17:53
Location: Halifax, Canada

Re: Clarification [Cremation]

#137

Post by wbell » 17 Nov 2017, 18:50

wm wrote: Mumbai's suburban rail network [...] suffers from some of the most severe overcrowding in the world [...] at densities up to 16 people/m2.
The people of India are of a smaller stature than Europeans, so I don't have a problem with more being able to fit into a m2. At this density, it would have to be increased by 50% to meet the 24 per M2 that's been suggested. I've done the math and no one has indicated that my calculations are incorrect. Perhaps they can be modified to accommodate a number of children, but I can't see that this will change the result to substantiate 24 people /m2. 24 into one M2. Yes. Infants, small children, ok. People of the size in the photos awaiting to be gassed? I don't think so.

It does not take away from the fact that too many people were murdered. It doesn't matter if it was done individually or in large events; it was horrific. It seems that there were many who defended the '6 million killed' at Auschwitz, until the number was officially reduced. This figure was greatly exaggerated. At the time they obviously didn't look at the logistics.

Exaggeration happens with most witnesses. The longer the time between their statement and the event, it's my experience that the numbers become exaggerated and the statements more theatrical. Even how the statement is taken often affects the witnesses response. Ask someone how fast the car was going, the estimated speed goes up. Ask them how slow was the car moving the speed goes down. I've asked the same witness both these questions during one statement and have received different answers. This is something that every experienced investigator is aware of.

As the Author of this question, it is less important to me how many people were killed in one gassing, than it is the logistics of that gassing. In-particular what is the evidence that supports the witnesses statement? Credibility is important. It is also vital to understand that every witness isn't completely correct in what they are claiming. Investigators have to wade through the lies and the misconceptions and misunderstandings.

One of my investigative trainers proposed a scenario to me in my early years. He said two artists were given an address and sent to make a drawing of a house. When they returned, the pictures were completely different. Which artist was mistaken? The answer was neither. One went to the front of the house and the other the back. What they saw was attributed to their perspective. Different people see different things. What's heard isn't always the same.

In 1984 Kirk Bloodsworth was convicted of the rape and murder of a nine-year-old girl and sentenced to the gas chamber. This outcome largely rested on the testimony of five eyewitnesses. After Bloodsworth served nine years in prison, DNA testing proved him to be innocent. All five witnesses were mistaken. If there were 100 or 1000 who pointed the finger at him, they would have been in-error.

Witnesses tend to rationalize and 'reconstruct' what they believe occurred. This reconstruction becomes a 'memory'.
Experience has shown that it is relatively easy to introduce false memory. Media coverage or written recollections by other witnesses could suggest "facts" to the witness. Witnesses will often discuss the occurrence amongst themselves and false memories can result.

I'm not suggesting that all of the witnesses of the holocaust were wrong. Experience has taught me that the number can't be looked at. Every witnessed must be found credible individually not collectively. Personally, I've not had the experience of prosecuting a person for homicide without supporting physical evidence. Every crime scene I've come upon has it. Sometimes it may be initially missed, but it is often there for the finding.

This is a cold case that people have turned the pages on before I was born. I've worked on cold cases before and have solved some. I'm not trying to 'solve' anything here, I'm retired. I do find it fascinating how some people can be so sure of every detail that occurred in history, before they were on the planet. I fear that many mysteries will be eventually solved that pertain to Nazi Germany, others will disappear into the fabric of time.


User avatar
Sergey Romanov
Member
Posts: 1987
Joined: 28 Dec 2003, 02:52
Location: World
Contact:

Re: Clarification

#138

Post by Sergey Romanov » 17 Nov 2017, 22:46

wbell wrote:
Sergey Romanov wrote: Prove that there have to be surviving reports. I'll wait.

LOL, really? Or maybe you should like, you know, research the readily available basics? It's all online, even.

Which exists only in your head?

You're completely clueless, aren't you?

Sure, because in India you burn one corpse per pyre. Duh.

Silly analogies and red herrings won't help you.

An objective, proven fact does not appeal to your common sense. Duly noted.

If you can't be pleasant, at least be polite. If your intent is to close people's ears to what you have to say; you're being successful. If not, try talking to people, not at them. A disrespectful and condescending attitude accomplishes nothing, other than to label you as ignoble.
Trying to tone-police won't hide the vacuity and deceptiveness of your "questions" and "arguments".

User avatar
Sergey Romanov
Member
Posts: 1987
Joined: 28 Dec 2003, 02:52
Location: World
Contact:

Re: Clarification [Cremation]

#139

Post by Sergey Romanov » 17 Nov 2017, 23:09

> but I can't see that this will change the result to substantiate 24 people

This and more has *already* been substantiated.

http://holocaust.skeptik.net/documents/ ... stein.html

You've been unable to respond so far. Writing useless walls of text is not the same as responding to simple arithmetical facts in the study.

> many who defended the '6 million killed' at Auschwitz, until the number was officially reduced

Thank you for demonstrating once again that you don't have the slightest idea what you're writing about.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

Re: Clarification [Cremation]

#140

Post by David Thompson » 18 Nov 2017, 00:31

wbell -- Wasn't this thread about cremation? If you have a question or issue you'd like to discuss, please state it plainly, and then stay with it. If you are skeptical of certain historical conclusions, state the conclusion you wish to contest (one per thread) and then make your case. We appreciate concision of thought here.

User avatar
wbell
Member
Posts: 161
Joined: 24 Oct 2017, 17:53
Location: Halifax, Canada

Re: Clarification [Cremation]

#141

Post by wbell » 18 Nov 2017, 10:05

David Thompson wrote:wbell -- Wasn't this thread about cremation? If you have a question or issue you'd like to discuss, please state it plainly, and then stay with it. If you are skeptical of certain historical conclusions, state the conclusion you wish to contest (one per thread) and then make your case. We appreciate concision of thought here.
David, I don't see that the topic has drifted at all. I suspect that it was you that may have added 'cremation' to my title.

My original post asked:

"1. What physical evidence is there that Gas Chambers existed for the mass extermination of people?

I don't doubt that large numbers were killed in the holocaust. My interest lies in the physical evidence of the method used.

2. What physical evidence exists that the death camps had the resources (and time available) to cremate those killed?"

In my second post this was clarified further.

Regarding my first question:

It had been suggested that witnesses gave direct evidence of the gassing procedures. Part of the role of physical evidence is to collaborate or refute statements made by witnesses, In one case under discussion, if it was physically possible for 24 people to fit into a 1 M2 space. If this was possible, it would support the witness.s statement, or if it wasn't it could detract from witness credibility, To-date, it has not been confirmed that this number is a reasonable one to attain.

Regarding Cremation:

Another question was the substantiation of outside multiple cremations by the use of pyre construction (fueled by wood and gasoline). The methods used and the quantities of fuel necessary were discussed. We have established that it's possible to cremate large numbers of people in a timely manner by using outside pyres. We have so far not established the source of the fuel required (an area of deforestation locally that would meet these fuel requirements). No records of diesel/gasoline/wood requisitions have been introduced. Aerial photos showing deforestation around the camps, or soil charring have been introduced.

Overall, I've been provided with reference material that I'm still sifting through. On this thread and others, I'm gaining useful information and have secured independent collaborated documentary evidence on mobile gassing units, for example. I'm pleased with the progress made to-date. This site is a terrific resource.

siwiec
Member
Posts: 223
Joined: 22 Jul 2010, 23:49

Re: Clarification [Cremation]

#142

Post by siwiec » 18 Nov 2017, 10:59

wbell wrote: It had been suggested that witnesses gave direct evidence of the gassing procedures. Part of the role of physical evidence is to collaborate or refute statements made by witnesses, In one case under discussion, if it was physically possible for 24 people to fit into a 1 M2 space. If this was possible, it would support the witness.s statement, or if it wasn't it could detract from witness credibility, To-date, it has not been confirmed that this number is a reasonable one to attain.
It has been showed by Provan that Wiernik's 1000-1200 per 49 m2 is possible. You just have not addressed the source demonstrating that. And more importantly, one estimate given by a witness via translated statement is not a proof of anything but perhaps slightly mistaken estimate even if proven inaccurate. What genuine historian, and any researcher would do is to take all the possible witness statements into account and see if what they say corroborate each other and whether there is any other proof available to support their statements. What you are currently doing, nitpicking details and taking one piece of evidence at time in isolation of other evidence is very typical denier way of dealing with these issues. So you should not be surprised if your statements are treated as such, denier talking points. Most of us are unfortunately quite familiar with that type of argumentation, and, to be honest, probably quite bored to repeat the answers given already several times here and elsewhere.

history1
Banned
Posts: 4095
Joined: 31 Oct 2005, 10:12
Location: Austria

Re: Clarification [Cremation]

#143

Post by history1 » 18 Nov 2017, 11:29

siwiec wrote:[...] What genuine historian, and any researcher would do is to take all the possible witness statements into account and see if what they say corroborate each other and whether there is any other proof available to support their statements. [...]
Happened e.g. during the Frankfurter Auschwitz trial were the court did confront witnesses with their statement after an on-site inspection in Auschwitz were they found out that the witness was NOT able to observe scenes in the yard of Block 11 from another building. Though he claimed so in his testimony and under oath.
I can support wbell´s conclusion that witnesses sometimes can not keep apart what theyself experienced and what they heard/read from others and later are convinced that theyself did witness this scenes.
This can also be seen in survivor testimony videos on different sites like YouTube from various institutions. People claim eg. to be selected by Mengele when he wasn´t even in Auschwitz.

User avatar
Sergey Romanov
Member
Posts: 1987
Joined: 28 Dec 2003, 02:52
Location: World
Contact:

Re: Clarification [Cremation]

#144

Post by Sergey Romanov » 18 Nov 2017, 12:39

That's why (most) modern historians don't simply collect testimonies but analyze and test them against available evidence and each other.

User avatar
Sergey Romanov
Member
Posts: 1987
Joined: 28 Dec 2003, 02:52
Location: World
Contact:

Re: Clarification [Cremation]

#145

Post by Sergey Romanov » 18 Nov 2017, 12:49

> Regarding my first question:

Documentary evidence for gas chambers has been given to you (gas vans, Auschwitz).

> In one case under discussion, if it was physically possible for 24 people to fit into a 1 M2 space.

It's not merely "under discussion". It's possible. There's not much to discuss about this objective fact.
http://holocaust.skeptik.net/documents/ ... stein.html

Provan fit 7 people and a doll representing an infant into 0,284516 m² without squashing, resulting in the density of 28.1 people per square meter, and that's not even the higher limit.

User avatar
wbell
Member
Posts: 161
Joined: 24 Oct 2017, 17:53
Location: Halifax, Canada

Re: Clarification [Cremation]

#146

Post by wbell » 18 Nov 2017, 13:23

siwiec wrote: ...one estimate given by a witness via translated statement is not a proof of anything but perhaps slightly mistaken estimate even if proven inaccurate. What genuine historian, and any researcher would do is to take all the possible witness statements into account and see if what they say corroborate each other and whether there is any other proof available to support their statements.
I approach this as a criminal Investigator, not solely as a researcher. As I have mentioned, every statement by a witness must stand individually and not collectively. Only once the statement is deemed to be credible is it compared with other statements. Physical and documentary evidence is then applied to support the statement, or it may suggest that the witness may not be incorrect or susceptible to wild exaggeration.
siwiec wrote: What you are currently doing, nitpicking details and taking one piece of evidence at time in isolation of other evidence is very typical denier way of dealing with these issues.
Evidence is always subject to scrutiny. Credibility is crucial to understanding what actually transpired. The facts when presented in their entirety should leave no reasonable doubt as to what occurred.
siwiec wrote: So you should not be surprised if your statements are treated as such, denier talking points. Most of us are unfortunately quite familiar with that type of argumentation, and, to be honest, probably quite bored to repeat the answers given already several times here and elsewhere.
As I have already stated earlier, I don't deny that huge numbers of people were killed in the death camps. It doesn't seem however, acceptable to even ask for physical evidence to support witness testimony. Although this is considered to be required in a court of law, many here suggest that "You have the witness testimonies, what else do you need?" An honest question can equate to "Your a holocaust denier!" It's a pity that some are so insecure that they take his approach.

As an Investigator I've investigated homicides and the questions of who/what/when/how (by what means) the death occurred have needed to be answered. I'm interested in supporting (from physical / documentary evidence) what transpired. To-date for example, I have documentary evidence that mobile gas trucks were used for extermination. Not just because someone said that this was the case. The statements have been collaborated. This has proven to me that any denial of their existence is unjustified. Obviously deniers may say that witnesses ate lying and the documents forged, but this isn't a reasonable conclusion.

Questions surrounding gas chambers and cremation facilities also need justification. Asking (for example) where did the firewood come from to burn 1,000,000 people should have an answer other than "Your a Holocaust Denier!" It is after all a reasonable question (the answer to which strengthens the position that it did in-fact occur, not weaken it). Failure to answer any reasonable question will not strengthen the case.

User avatar
Max
Member
Posts: 2632
Joined: 16 Mar 2002, 15:08
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Clarification [Cremation]

#147

Post by Max » 18 Nov 2017, 14:55

wbell wrote:
Regarding my first question:

......... In one case under discussion, if it was physically possible for 24 people to fit into a 1 M2 space. If this was possible, it would support the witness.s statement, or if it wasn't it could detract from witness credibility, To-date, it has not been confirmed that this number is a reasonable one to attain.

.
You continue to assert that of the number is not confirmed and is probably unreasonable and exaggerated.
You seem to have dismissed the link posted by Sergey Romanov.
Your analysis at viewtopic.php?p=2108220#p2108220 is very superficial in that it doesn't take into account the crushing that would have obviously taken place. It is likely that many individuals had fallen to the floor with others standing on top of them.
Babies and small children were carried by an adult and held high as possible.
Your model assumes everyone standing upright and each beside the other in an orderly manner.

Let's look at this another way

The chamber was 25m2 in floor area and 45m3 in volume -therefore the height was 1.8m [not much head room]
The volume of an average adult is about 0.07 m3
The volume of the average child [say half the adult] about 0.035 m3

45 / 0.07 = approx 643 adults [filling all available space]
643/25 = 25+ per sqm

Even if 10% 0f room volume is unfilled then

40.5 m3 /0.07m3 = 578 adults or 23/m2


if 15% of the space was taken by children then

adults 40.5*85%/0.07= 468
children 40.5*15%/.035 =173
Total 641 people or 25/m2

This accords with claims
I suppose someone will have to do the experiment again with actual people, but I am confident that it is possible.
Greetings from the Wide Brown.

siwiec
Member
Posts: 223
Joined: 22 Jul 2010, 23:49

Re: Clarification [Cremation]

#148

Post by siwiec » 18 Nov 2017, 15:37

wbell wrote: I approach this as a criminal Investigator, not solely as a researcher. As I have mentioned, every statement by a witness must stand individually and not collectively. Only once the statement is deemed to be credible is it compared with other statements.
Your approach does not sound sane to me, criminal investigator or not. No witness statement is perfect, that is why one compares them with each other to get the general picture of what actually happened. The more complicated and psychologically burdensome the case etc., less perfect the individual witnesses, thus you listen as many witnesses as possible. You cannot treat these in isolation: If we had only the story by Wiernik and nothing else was known about Treblinka or about the general context, i.e. the FS, nobody would believe him. You cannot thrash bin a statement just because it does not sound credible at the start of an investigation.

User avatar
wbell
Member
Posts: 161
Joined: 24 Oct 2017, 17:53
Location: Halifax, Canada

Re: Clarification [Cremation]

#149

Post by wbell » 18 Nov 2017, 16:46

siwiec wrote: ...You cannot thrash bin a statement just because it does not sound credible at the start of an investigation.
You are correct. After the statement is analysed for any glaring and obvious misstatements (which are noted) it's compared with other statements to find common ground. Nothing in the statement is forgotten, but emphasis is placed on probability. It's important to note that a case is seldom based on witness evidence alone.

As I've already mentioned, there have been cases where 100% of the eye witnesses in a case have been wrong in what they perceived to be the truth. Many witnesses who misinterpret what occurred are not being deceitful. It does however substantiate the importance of other types of evidence.

One light-hearted film that demonstrated the importance of additional evidence in a murder case was the 1992 movie "My Cousin Vinny." None of the witnesses were malicious, but were mistaken. This does adequately reflect some of the problems that investigators and Courts have to deal with in separating what may have occurred, from what actually did. You may find the movie entertaining.

User avatar
wbell
Member
Posts: 161
Joined: 24 Oct 2017, 17:53
Location: Halifax, Canada

Re: Clarification [Cremation]

#150

Post by wbell » 18 Nov 2017, 17:48

Max wrote: Your analysis at viewtopic.php?p=2108220#p2108220 is very superficial in that it doesn't take into account the crushing that would have obviously taken place. It is likely that many individuals had fallen to the floor with others standing on top of them. Babies and small children were carried by an adult and held high as possible. Your model assumes everyone standing upright and each beside the other in an orderly manner.

...I suppose someone will have to do the experiment again with actual people, but I am confident that it is possible.
Thank you Max. I appreciate that you've taken the time to review my calculations and comment on them. You are correct that my calculations did not take the considerations that you have brought to light. If people fell on the floor and were stood on, it makes sense that many more people could fit into the area. I was proceeding on the assumption that the witness statements hadn't indicated this and it was a matter of crowding.

I have some reservation in the fact that people could be compressed to any degree (for the reasons that I have already explained). It is also difficult for me to accept that people could be compacted to any degree unless the exterminators entered the room and compacted people as they entered.

If you attempt to get into a full elevator you can push into the person at the door, people don't move backward at the rear. That's just an observation. If people thought that they were about to be killed, I think that cooperation of those inside couldn't be counted on, in-fact they might push the other way...

Max wrote: Let's look at this another way ...The volume of an average adult is about 0.07 m3 The volume of the average child [say half the adult] about 0.035 m3
I can't say what the average size is of the average adult that entered the gas chamber. I did my calculations by using dimensions which I felt were reasonable ( 0.1361288m²). No doubt others have used different sizes and have come up with different results.

I can't see much sense in debating how many people can fit into one square meter of space. A video of such an attempt isn't available to the best of my knowledge. Given the information I presented (world record of 20 people into a V.W.) and my other calculations. I think that the figure 24 per M2 is an exaggeration. The readers are certainly free to come to whatever conclusion they think is reasonable.

Regardless, I do not completely disregard the statement. I don't doubt that there are several statements that will frame the events that transpired in a similar way. That is however not the purpose of my questions.

As I have also stated, I am more interested in the physical evidence that will collaborate the testimonial evidence given. These include records of deliveries of: Zyklon B, Coke, Firewood, Gasoline, photos of storage areas, deforestation, etc. Records that involve both Concentration Camps and Death Camps may be then compared to show the obvious. Autopsy information or DNA analysis on the cause of death of those murdered would also be helpful.

Post Reply

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”