The Ovens in the Camps are Incinerators Now

[Hektor]

How funny is this? What you are witnessing is yet another attempt to change the storyline.

The claimed "incinerator"
was never built. Topf had a patent only, The 'incinerator' was never constructed. Such is the duplicity of the 'holocaust' Industry.
note:
Sometimes there are references to the 'incineration / burning' section of a cremation oven, but that is not the same as an actual Incinerator.

The 'continual feed' claim is so bad that I'm surprised the Jewish supremacists still use it. Read on.
....

And apparently this continuous incinerator was OFFERED to the SS, but they declined, which is a clear indication that they didn't have activities going that made such a plant useful for them.

[hermod]

How funny is this? What you are witnessing is yet another attempt to change the storyline.

If the Nazis really had such an incinerator at Auschwitz, why were they forced to use outdoor burning pits as the Holocaustians claim? And if they didn't use burning pits, are people supposed to rely on propagandists forging 'evidence' to 'prove' their stories (I'm referring to the famous Picasso style photo of the Auschwitz burning pits - see below)? That's funny to see how new Holocaust lies debunk other older Holocaust lies.

[Engel]

As for cremation capacity, SS Prufer, who was the builder of the typhus abatement ovens at Auschwitz which were heavily used during the well known huge epidemics, stated:

I spoke about the enormous strain on the overused furnaces. I told Chief Engineer Sander: I am worried whether the furnaces can stand the excessive usage. In my presence two cadavers were pushed into one muffle instead of one cadaver. The furnaces could not stand the strain.

That's interesting, what I don't understand is that it seems all of the "official" internal memos presented by the exterminationists present a gross exageration of the cremation capacity. For example, an alledged "new document" which recounts a conversation Prufer had with Krone of the buildings section of the WVHA:

TOPF To J.A. TOPF UND SÖHNE Erfurt, September 8, 1942

Department D IV

Our Mark: D IV/Prf./hes
In Matters of: Reichsführer SS, Berlin-Lichterfelde-West.
Concerning: Krematorium-Auschwitz.

Confidential! Secret!

8.9.42 Herr Obersturmführer Krone calls to say that he was
summoned to meet with Brigadeführer Kämmer and
to report on his inspection of the crematorium in Auschwitz,
whence he had returned yesterday. He could make nothing
of the facilities at Auschwitz and wanted therefore to inform
himself on how many muffles are in operation there at this
time and how many ovens with muffles we are building there
and are still to be delivered.

I told him that at this time 3 double-muffle
ovens are in operation, with a capacity of
250 per day. Further, currently under
construction are 5 triple muffle ovens


with a daily capacity of 800. Today and in the next few
days, 2 eight-muffle ovens, each with a daily capacity
of 800, will come on consignment, redirected from Mogilew.

Mr K said that this number of muffles is not yet sufficient;
we should deliver more ovens as quickly as possible.

Thus, it is appropriate that I come to Berlin Thursday
morning in order to discuss further deliveries with Mr K.
I should bring documents on Auschwitz with me, so that
the urgent calls can be finally silenced once and for all.

I have agreed to the visit for Thursday.

As can be clearly seen, the memo states that,

A) 6 muffles can cremate 250 bodies per day, when in reality, with a generous rate of one body per hour, it only comes out to 144.

B) 15 muffles can cremate 800 (!) bodies per day, when in reality, with the same one body per hour, it amounts to only 360.

C) 8 muffles can cremate 800 bodies per day, when only 192 is possible.

If I'm correct the estimate of total possible daily cremations given by Topf after the installation of the ovens was all ridiculous, hovering in the 4000 range when in reality, it could only be a quarter of that.

So my question is: Why are the figures given by Topf and Prufer so greatly exagerated and inconsistent? As manufacturers of crematory ovens, were they not aware of the capacity of their own devices?

[Hannover]

Engel said:

A) 6 muffles can cremate 250 bodies per day, when in reality, with a generous rate of one body per hour, it only comes out to 144.

B) 15 muffles can cremate 800 (!) bodies per day, when in reality, with the same one body per hour, it amounts to only 360.

C) 8 muffles can cremate 800 bodies per day, when only 192 is possible.

If I'm correct the estimate of total possible daily cremations given by Topf after the installation of the ovens was all ridiculous, hovering in the 4000 range when in reality, it could only be a quarter of that.

So my question is: Why are the figures given by Topf and Prufer so greatly exagerated and inconsistent? As manufacturers of crematory ovens, were they not aware of the capacity of their own devices?

About this "new document":

- Where are the official SS records or other verifiable documents to back this up?
- This piece of paper is not signed.
- 'Secret / geheim' is typed in, but it's lacking the official German stamp 'Geheim!' which should be present.
- What is a business such as Topf doing using an official category of 'secret" which was strictly reserved for German government / military offices & departments?
- Blank Topf letterhead was available after the war for anyone to type whatever they wished.
- The cremation numbers claimed are in contradiction to Prufer's statements.
- The cremation numbers make no scientific sense.
- The cremation numbers typed in contradict the numbers claimed by often quoted & so called 'eyewitnesses' like Henryk Tauber.
- When is it claimed to have been 'found'?
- Where was it supposedly found?
- Who supposedly found it?
- Since allegedly being found, what is the claimed path of ownership for this "new document".
- Mysteriously, after almost 3/4 of a century there is a "new document" which just appears.
- 1930's - 40's German typewriters were / are available.

The numbers are not 'exaggerated', they are made up out of whole cloth.

This dog don't hunt.

- Hannover

[hermod]

As for cremation capacity, SS Prufer, who was the builder of the typhus abatement ovens at Auschwitz which were heavily used during the well known huge epidemics, stated:

If I'm correct the estimate of total possible daily cremations given by Topf after the installation of the ovens was all ridiculous, hovering in the 4000 range when in reality, it could only be a quarter of that.

So my question is: Why are the figures given by Topf and Prufer so greatly exagerated and inconsistent? As manufacturers of crematory ovens, were they not aware of the capacity of their own devices?

When and where has that "new document" first surfaced?

[Engel]

Apparently, according to the Holocaust History Project, the document was graciously provided by a Dr. Bernhard Post of the Thüringisches Hauptstaatsarchiv in Germany.

I should of posted the link, sorry about that.

http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/topf/

[Hannover]

Apparently, according to the Holocaust History Project, the document was graciously provided by a Dr. Bernhard Post of the Thüringisches Hauptstaatsarchiv in Germany.

- Note that this Bernhard Post is working under a conflict of interest. The body he works for commemorates the 'holocaust' under the banner of "Internationaler Archivrat im Erinnerungsort Topf & Söhne". It's bought lock, stock, barrel, by Jewish supremacists and Marxist interests. Look them up.
- He is not a neutral observer and has an obvious motive for suddenly, after 3/4 of a century, curiously producing this bogus document.
- Post should be questioned on where he 'found' this document.
- Did Post type it himself?
- Was it from a communist Soviet source? Prufer was held by the Soviets after the war until his death and the communists always managed to get what they wanted from prisoners under their infamous 'questioning techniques'.
- The crematory ovens could never have cremated that many people in the timeline alleged. Simply impossible.
- There are no human remains which align with the laughable claims,
- The alleged murder weapon, 'gas chambers', were utterly scientifically impossible.
- Fraudulence is standard operating procedure for the 'holocaust'history.org' They have been refuted on everything they make claims for, everything. Recall that in the OP they desperately & absurdly claimed 'incinerators' were used.

The new document' is as bogus as a $3 bill.

As I said:

About this "new document":

- Where are the official SS records or other verifiable documents to back this up?
- This piece of paper is not signed.
- 'Secret / geheim' is typed in, but it's lacking the official German stamp 'Geheim!' which should be present.
- What is a business such as Topf doing using an official category of 'secret" which was strictly reserved for German government / military offices & departments?
- Blank Topf letterhead was available after the war for anyone to type whatever they wished.
- The cremation numbers claimed are in contradiction to other Prufer statements.
- The cremation numbers make no scientific sense.
- The cremation numbers typed in contradict the numbers claimed by often quoted & so called 'eyewitnesses' like Henryk Tauber.
- When is it claimed to have been 'found'?
- Where was it supposedly found?
- Who supposedly found it?
- Since allegedly being found, what is the claimed path of ownership for this "new document".
- Mysteriously, after almost 3/4 of a century there is a "new document" which just appears.
- 1930's - 40's German typewriters were / are available.

The numbers are not 'exaggerated', they are made up out of whole cloth.

This is too easy.
- Hannover

[Bob]

Hannover, this document is known for at least for 15 years AFAIK, it comes from Pressac and as Mattogno noted Pressac has falsified the figures for 8-muffle oven, 400 instead of 800 because he was aware of the nonsensical figure for 8-muffle oven when Prufer attributed the same figure of 800 corpses to the five three-muffle oven (15 muffles), i.e. the number of muffles is almost doubled but the capacity is the same. As Mattogno reported, Pressac "never wanted to publish the document in question." For the treatment of the document in question (Auschwitz: The Case for Sanity, p. 451ff)

I advice to not consider every document as forgery but to actually concentrate you effort on the content unless there is something what suggest a forgery, I do not see anything like this and is a bit nonsensical to forge capacity which goes against the another document which is according to you also suspicious, the letter of June 28, 1943, why somebody forged two completely contradicting documents according to you?

[Hannover]

Hannover, this document is known for at least for 15 years AFAIK, it comes from Pressac and as Mattogno noted Pressac has falsified the figures for 8-muffle oven, 400 instead of 800 because he was aware of the nonsensical figure for 8-muffle oven when Prufer attributed the same figure of 800 corpses to the five three-muffle oven (15 muffles), i.e. the number of muffles is almost doubled but the capacity is the same. As Mattogno reported, Pressac "never wanted to publish the document in question." For the treatment of the document in question (Auschwitz: The Case for Sanity, p. 451ff)

I advice to not consider every document as forgery but to actually concentrate you effort on the content unless there is something what suggest a forgery, I do not see anything like this and is a bit nonsensical to forge capacity which goes against the another document which is according to you also suspicious, the letter of June 28, 1943, why somebody forged two completely contradicting documents according to you?

Thanks for your thoughts, Bob. I was acting on the assumption that this was, as stated, a "new document". Please read the clarifying posts prior to my list of points.

Yet I do see you admit to falsification, as I stated, but by Pressac. So perhaps Mr. Post is exonerated, but Pressac is not. However, one is required to reflect on the motives of this Mr. Post who released this false 'document'. Again, please read related posts in this thread on this piece of paper.

Please Bob, no strawmen, I do not consider every document a forgery, only the ones I call out. If a 'document' claims impossible and contradictory cremation rates I definitely call it a forgery, or a forced statement on paper (the same thing ), which I certainly stated in my points. Impossible claims mandate that the document is "bogus", another word I used. I note that many of the points in my favor went unaddressed.

My advice to you is don't be shy in calling out obviously manipulated / forged 'documents'.

- Hannover

[Bob]

I was acting on the assumption that this was, as stated, a "new document".

Only a clarification, the existence of the document is known for at least 15 years AFAIK, but the document itself was published some 8-9 years ago.

Yet I do see you admit to falsification, as I stated, but by Pressac. So perhaps Mr. Post is exonerated, but Pressac is not.

But the falsification is related to the interpretation of the document, not to the document itself.

Please Bob, no strawmen, I do not consider every document a forgery, [...]

No strawman, I took into account that from what I saw from your comments, you always doubt authenticity of such documents. Only my two cents.

As for your points, you can read Mattogno´s analysis, reference is above.

[Hannover]

But the falsification is related to the interpretation of the document, not to the document itself.

Does it not contradict the amounts alleged in other 'documents'? Yes it does. The document is therefore bogus / fraudulent / forged, I used all three. Take your pick.

No strawman, I took into account that from what I saw from your comments, you always doubt authenticity of such documents. Only my two cents.

As for your points, you can read Mattogno´s analysis, reference is above.

What comments show that I believe all documents are forgeries? None.

I have read Mattogno, who implies rather strongly what I state openly. I suggest you re-read the relevant Mattogno text. My points stand. Thank you.

- Hannover

[Bob]

But the falsification is related to the interpretation of the document, not to the document itself.

Does it not contradict the amounts alleged in other 'documents'? Yes it does. The document is therefore bogus / fraudulent / forged, I used all three. Take your pick.

Yes, it does, for example the document dated June 28, 1943 which is according to you also fraudulent/bogus/forged AFAIK, so if possible, please explain why they allegedly forged two contradicting documents.

I have read Mattogno, who implies rather strongly what I state openly. I suggest you re-read the relevant Mattogno text. My points stand. Thank you.

- Hannover

Mattogno´s conclusion: "In conclusion, then, we may say that Prüfer’s note of September 8, 1942, does not contain real data. At best it expresses unrealistic expectations for the five triple-muffle ovens and inexplicably absurd figures for the two 8-muffle ovens."

The answer is no, he does not suggests or allude that the document is fraudulent/bogus/forged.

[Hannover]

Bob says:

... for example the document dated June 28, 1943 which is according to you also fraudulent/bogus/forged AFAIK, so if possible, please explain why they allegedly forged two contradicting documents.

Well, Bob, this is far cry from your innuendo that I claim all documents are forged, you just cited a grand total of one additional document.

You also seem to be unaware of the reasons that 'holocaust' Revisionism exists. It's because there are gaping holes, contradictions, and absurdities which do not stand up to scrutiny. The two documents are no exception. You give too much credit to the Industry. You seem shocked that they produced conflicting numbers. I have news for you, that is routine rather than the exception. Yes, there is a reason for 'holocaust' Revisionism. There are conflicting documents just as there are conflicting "eyewitness" claims, conflicting "survivors" tales, conflicting "testimony", tampered aerial photos, on & on. Do I really believe the liars of the 'holocaust' Industry have made enormous blunders in building the beast? Yes, I do. Do you really need a lesson in Revisionism 101? If so, I suggest a walk through this forum and the endless Revisionist research that is readily available.

Yes, Mattogno does say on p. 456 of his cited work:

In conclusion, then, we may say that Prüfer’s note of September 8, 1942, does not contain real data. At best it expresses unrealistic expectations for the five triple-muffle ovens and inexplicably absurd figures for the two 8-muffle ovens.

I wonder if you actually caught Mattogno's interesting descriptions. When I read descriptions like: "does not contain real data", "at best", and "inexplicably absurd figures" I smell a rat. Yet you wish to believe someone has not had their hand in the cookie jar. Happy dreams.

- Hannover

[Bob]

Well, Bob, this is far cry from your innuendo that I claim all documents are forged, you just cited a grand total of one additional document.

It wasn´t my intention to point out all examples, I pointed out an example which is directly linked to our topic and AFAIK there are only two such documents, so I correctly used a word "every."

Edit - there is also another, but I didn´t see your comment about it so logically - is not included in my assertion since I said "from what I saw from your comments"

You also seem to be unaware of the reasons that 'holocaust' Revisionism exists. It's because there are gaping holes, contradictions, and absurdities which do not stand up to scrutiny. The two documents are no exception. You give too much credit to the Industry. You seem shocked that they produced conflicting numbers. I have news for you, that is routine rather than the exception. Yes, there is a reason for 'holocaust' Revisionism. There are conflicting documents just as there are conflicting "eyewitness" claims, conflicting "survivors" tales, conflicting "testimony", tampered aerial photos, on & on. Do I really believe the liars of the 'holocaust' Industry have made enormous blunders in building the beast? Yes, I do. Do you really need a lesson in Revisionism 101? If so, I suggest a walk through this forum and the endless Revisionist research that is readily available.

Thank you for your explanation as if I was a newbie in revisionism, but can you answer my question which is related only to the documents in question?

I wonder if you actually caught Mattogno's interesting descriptions. When I read descriptions like: "does not contain real data", "at best", and "inexplicably absurd figures" I smell a rat. Yet you wish to believe someone has not had their hand in the cookie jar. Happy dreams.

Yes, I did and Mattogno clearly explained that data are not real because ovens in question did not exist at Auschwitz, and data are at best unrealistic expectations on Prufer´s side whereas his expected figure for 8-muffle oven is absurd.

There is nothing about forgery from Mattogno´s side, quite the contrary, re-read please, and re-read the full statements, not separated words.

[Thames Darwin]

When ever there is money involved you're going to find mistakes have been made. The smell of cold hard cash brings out everyone and then you've got too many cooks spoiling the pot. Something involving less money might have had a better shot at eliminating easily avoidable mistakes. The Big H? Not so much.