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

Let's run the numbers. The average weight of a woman in the 60s was 140.2 pounds. I'm taking women because they have higher fat percentages to be charitable.

The average BMI was 25.


Screenshot_20220717-065410_Brave.jpg

This is an academic estimate how bmi relates to fat percentage, which works fine if we want to figure out averages. (Sex=1 for women sex=0 for men)


Lets keep trying to go fairly average and take 35 years old.

( 1.20 x 25 ) + (0.23 x 35) - 10.8 -5.4

30+ 8.05 - 16.2 = 21.85

So the average fat percentage waa 21.85%

140.2 × 0.2185 = 30.6337 pounds of fat.

So let's round it to 30 pounds of fat.

They did at one point use liposuction human fat to help power a boat, apparently. Let's assume for the moment their figures are correct.


Now they claim it takes 20 pounds of human fat to produce 2 gallons of fuel. But at this point I'm stumped, because I don't know to get to some estimate to the energy produced by said fuel (they seem only interested in the volume of the fuel).

If anyone knows how to take this further we can calculate if it could theoretically be feasable and what the emaciated:regular corpse ratio would be.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: mr.moon1488
Lemmingwise said:
Let's run the numbers. The average weight of a woman in the 60s was 140.2 pounds. I'm taking women because they have higher fat percentages to be charitable.

The average BMI was 25.


View attachment 3499238

This is an academic estimate how bmi relates to fat percentage, which works fine if we want to figure out averages. (Sex=1 for women sex=0 for men)


Lets keep trying to go fairly average and take 35 years old.

( 1.20 x 25 ) + (0.23 x 35) - 10.8 -5.4

30+ 8.05 - 16.2 = 21.85

So the average fat percentage waa 21.85%

140.2 × 0.2185 = 30.6337 pounds of fat.

So let's round it to 30 pounds of fat.

They did at one point use liposuction human fat to help power a boat, apparently. Let's assume for the moment their figures are correct.


Now they claim it takes 20 pounds of human fat to produce 2 gallons of fuel. But at this point I'm stumped, because I don't know to get to some estimate to the energy produced by said fuel (they seem only interested in the volume of the fuel).

If anyone knows how to take this further we can calculate if it could theoretically be feasable and what the emaciated:regular corpse ratio would be.
Click to expand...
Highest estimate I'm seeing is 38MJ/kg of human fat
And 2.2lb = 1kg
so 38 / 2.2 rounds up to ~17.3MJ per pound of fat
 
  • Like
Reactions: mr.moon1488
Kyria the Great said:
Which is truly the worst offense, to deny the Holocaust or to believe it was good and didn't go far enough?
Click to expand...
If deniers really wanted it to happen anyway, as it would have fit their ideological framework, I really don’t see the point in denying it. Sure, there are people that have grifted off of it like other tragedies, but that doesn’t make it entirely false.

Even if the exact number is still debated, it did in fact happen. You can’t hide thousands upon thousands of bodies that easily. Not all of them were cremated, so I find the heavy focus by deniers on just the ovens to be disingenuous. Stalin was documented in killing millions through just starvation, so it obviously doesn’t need only gas chambers to get large numbers.

Pretty much all deniers I see have ulterior motives not unlike communists that will get blue in the face to deny Holodomor and Mao killing off millions. In fact, many deniers are unafraid to admit to murder communists have done, but are unwilling to acknowledge the amount of death Nazis caused. Can we stop pretending the Nazis didn’t murder millions off of just war alone? Plenty that died in the Holocaust were actually Slavs, but they get overshadowed by Jews in most lessons on the Holocaust.

Finally, if I actually did identify as a Nazi, I would actually not deny anything, save for obvious fake things like the skin lamps. Through denying, it is taking away from the work it took to kill that many people. Denial that it ever happened implies that very few Jews and other undesirables were killed, meaning Nazis were very inefficient. I wouldn’t be proud of that. Imagine putting forth a bunch of effort to eradicate undesirables from society for little in return? This actually makes the Nazis sound like wimps with the denial narrative.
 
  • Dumb
  • Like
Reactions: Feline Supremacist and CrentistMcMahon
Heat of Vaporization = 0.54 kcal/g -> 540kcal/kg -> 2.26MJ/kg water
Human is 45-75% water depending on how thirsty. Lets go with 50% for ease of calculation
140lb woman is therefore 70lb water, and as previously asserted 30lb fat

Assuming the body started at 100C, we need 70lb * ( 1lb / 2.2kg) * (2.26MJ) -> ~72MJ
30lb fat -> 17MJ * 30 -> 510MJ
So yeah, actually. Looks to me like a Jew-fueled incinerator is definitely at least theoretically workable.
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Lemmingwise
Lemmingwise said:
So let's round it to 30 pounds of fat.

They did at one point use liposuction human fat to help power a boat, apparently. Let's assume for the moment their figures are correct.


Now they claim it takes 20 pounds of human fat to produce 2 gallons of fuel. But at this point I'm stumped, because I don't know to get to some estimate to the energy produced by said fuel (they seem only interested in the volume of the fuel).

If anyone knows how to take this further we can calculate if it could theoretically be feasable and what the emaciated:regular corpse ratio would be.
Click to expand...

The commonly accepted amount of energy in biological fats have about 9 kilocalories or 37 kilojoules per gram. 30 pounds is about 13607.77 grams, we can round to 13,608 grams. Multiply by the kilojoules and we find that 30 pounds (13,608) of biological fat contains approximately 503,496 kilojoules of potential energy. (16,783 kj per pound.) This would be more useful in kilograms, so lets covert 30 pounds; yielding 13.06 kg of fat, and with the energy calculate earlier gives us 38,552 kj/kilogram or 38.552 megajoules / kilogram. Lets compare that to some other substances. (Wikipedia, why not.)
Human Fat 38.552 megajoules / kilogram
Natural gas 53.6 megajoules / kilogram
Gasoline (petrol) 46.4 megajoules / kilogram
Diesel fuel 45.6 megajoules / kilogram
Body fat 38 megajoules / kilogram (Look they already made a calculation and we were pretty close, cool!)
Coal, anthracite 26–33 megajoules / kilogram
Wood 18.0 megajoules / kilogram

So as an energy source, fat is actually a pretty energy dense form (probably why so many animals use it as energy storage), but there is certain caveat. Biological fats are very different from the other fuels we typically see - like natural gas, diesel, coal or wood. I won't go into too much detail on the chemistry front, but to be brief; fats are arbitrarily long chains of carbon enriched acids with relatively high stability, and require relatively complex mediated biological processes to release energy, the inorganic fuels are (comparatively) simple and much more volatile with much easier methods of self-propagating energy extraction. Secondly, the direct energy product of fats is in the biochemical compound adenosine triphosphate (ATP) while the hydrocarbons primarily emit heat energy.

Consider: If I want to get energy from natural gas I just need to apply a lit match to the stove burner and we will have an ongoing transformation of the chemical energy stored in the gas to heat energy as long as the gas flows, where the process to extract energy from fat requires constant biological mediation/action and yields ATP.

Therefore:
CrentistMcMahon said:
So yeah, actually. Looks to me like a Jew-fueled incinerator is definitely at least theoretically workable.
Click to expand...
Theoretically, maybe in a perfect world of pure matter to energy, but the issue here is that human fat in its raw state does not easily yield energy in a a form that would be useful for cremation. Instead of giving off heat like petrol would to dehydrate and incinerate, the energy extracted is in the form of ATP which a living cell could use for a number of purposes.

Now you can theoretically subject fats (like human body fat or vegetable oils) to certain chemical processes to yield bio-diesel, which can be used as fuel in machinery (though it is usually blended with regular diesel and has lower energy density), but that involves a process that was only recently industrialized in I think the 1970s or early 80s. While the theory was known and I think a few patents filed as early as the 30's it simply wasn't commonplace and would obviously involve a system where the human fat is removed from cadavers then processed in a lab setting to yield a combustible fuel.

Long story short, human fat contain energy, but not in a form that can be easily exploited for industrial processes that require combustion or heat energy.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Green Man and Lemmingwise
JohnDoe said:
The commonly accepted amount of energy in biological fats have about 9 kilocalories or 37 kilojoules per gram. 30 pounds is about 13607.77 grams, we can round to 13,608 grams. Multiply by the kilojoules and we find that 30 pounds (13,608) of biological fat contains approximately 503,496 kilojoules of potential energy. (16,783 kj per pound.) This would be more useful in kilograms, so lets covert 30 pounds; yielding 13.06 kg of fat, and with the energy calculate earlier gives us 38,552 kj/kilogram or 38.552 megajoules / kilogram. Lets compare that to some other substances. (Wikipedia, why not.)
Human Fat 38.552 megajoules / kilogram
Natural gas 53.6 megajoules / kilogram
Gasoline (petrol) 46.4 megajoules / kilogram
Diesel fuel 45.6 megajoules / kilogram
Body fat 38 megajoules / kilogram (Look they already made a calculation and we were pretty close, cool!)
Coal, anthracite 26–33 megajoules / kilogram
Wood 18.0 megajoules / kilogram

So as an energy source, fat is actually a pretty energy dense form (probably why so many animals use it as energy storage), but there is certain caveat. Biological fats are very different from the other fuels we typically see - like natural gas, diesel, coal or wood. I won't go into too much detail on the chemistry front, but to be brief; fats are arbitrarily long chains of carbon enriched acids with relatively high stability, and require relatively complex mediated biological processes to release energy, the inorganic fuels are (comparatively) simple and much more volatile with much easier methods of self-propagating energy extraction. Secondly, the direct energy product of fats is in the biochemical compound adenosine triphosphate (ATP) while the hydrocarbons primarily emit heat energy.

Consider: If I want to get energy from natural gas I just need to apply a lit match to the stove burner and we will have an ongoing transformation of the chemical energy stored in the gas to heat energy as long as the gas flows, where the process to extract energy from fat requires constant biological mediation/action and yields ATP.

Therefore:

Theoretically, maybe in a perfect world of pure matter to energy, but the issue here is that human fat in its raw state does not easily yield energy in a a form that would be useful for cremation. Instead of giving off heat like petrol would to dehydrate and incinerate, the energy extracted is in the form of ATP which a living cell could use for a number of purposes.

Now you can theoretically subject fats (like human body fat or vegetable oils) to certain chemical processes to yield bio-diesel, which can be used as fuel in machinery (though it is usually blended with regular diesel and has lower energy density), but that involves a process that was only recently industrialized in I think the 1970s or early 80s. While the theory was known and I think a few patents filed as early as the 30's it simply wasn't commonplace and would obviously involve a system where the human fat is removed from cadavers then processed in a lab setting to yield a combustible fuel.

Long story short, human fat contain energy, but not in a form that can be easily exploited for industrial processes that require combustion or heat energy.
Click to expand...
In vivo the energy is extracted in a complex multi-stage process simply because setting it on fire would be harmful to the animal lol. We're actually using numbers from bomb calorimetry so bringing metabolic pathways into the discussion is just muddying the waters. These numbers are measured by combustion so I would expect them to be accurate for combustion.
 
  • Like
  • Winner
Reactions: Chugger and mrolonzo
CrentistMcMahon said:
We're actually using numbers from bomb calorimetry so bringing metabolic pathways into the discussion is just muddying the waters. These numbers are measured by combustion so I would expect them to be accurate for combustion.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't consider 25-30 atmospheres of pure oxygen (like in bomb calorimetry) to be the typical conditions for combustion in most applications.

Chugger said:
What's your level of certainty here?
Click to expand...
I have a memo right here written by Heinrich von Wattenberg that says this is the case, and he has a doctorate in chemical engineering.

In all seriousness, animal fats in their natural state present a number of difficulties in industrial environments, primarily in their viscosity. It wasn't until the 30s that the chemical processes needed to transesterify triglycerides was discovered, and the 1970s before industrial processes were developed. Compare and contrast that with the ease by which coal stoked many boilers throughout history, or the relatively simple distillation of petroleum.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Green Man and mrolonzo
JohnDoe said:
In all seriousness, animal fats in their natural state present a number of difficulties in industrial environments, primarily in their viscosity.
Click to expand...
So what are you guys saying here--that a little more fuel would have been necessary because fat people don't burn better?

and following from this, the Nazis would have been even less incentivized to destroy the bodies of the millions of people killed in death camps (because it would cost 20% more or whatever figure)
 
Chugger said:
So what are you guys saying here--that a little more fuel would have been necessary because fat people don't burn better?
Click to expand...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but he's saying that it doesn't combust and thus the energy isn't released as heat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mrolonzo
Lemmingwise said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but he's saying that it doesn't combust and thus the energy isn't released as heat.
Click to expand...
oh you're just shooting the shit, doing corpse math for fun? it's a weird thing to do even if you need to to win a debate. but carry on
 
Stan said:
Are you shitposting? Are you a cow? Bugger off.

From the source I'll link you too (dont freak out retards you can read a summary without signing up!!)
Click to expand...
Why are you quoting Yitzak Arad at me?

Do you think because you picked up a book about the holocaust you've solved the case?

The camps were part of an operation called Aktion Rheinhard, which was to tax Jews of their valuables on their way out of the Reich. This was part of the local government deportation operation. Thus the various and multiple references to deportation. Thus the small size and location of the camps (next to lines where the railway gauge changes so you can keep going East).

History Speaks said:
I am actually now looking for an original copy of this technical report - which is quoted extensively in Van Pelt and other secondary sources - to add to my documentary dossier, I know the Auschwitz state museum in Oswiecim has a copy.

I am guessing you are LARPing about the Holocaust Scientology stuff and are just a monoligual English speaker who is incapable of studying German history. However if you speak German I will send this report to you when I get it. If not I can still send it and you can larp as having read and analyzed it.
Click to expand...

This referencing Van Pelt of all people will not do!!

Chugger said:
oh you're just shooting the shit, doing corpse math for fun? it's a weird thing to do even if you need to to win a debate. but carry on
Click to expand...

Why is corpse math a weird thing to do?
You guys, I.e. the industry, brought it up. You literally tell us there all these vague numbers of people, killed in certain way at a certain time because, you know..... Hitler had too much evilness, then buried, then dug up, then cremated, then buried as ash in a local pond or underground.

But us doing corpse math is.....weird?
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Green Man, Certified_Autist and JohnDoe
mrolonzo said:
Thus the small size and location of the camps (next to lines where the railway gauge changes so you can keep going East).
Click to expand...
you seem to know a lot so maybe you can be the first denier here to provide any evidence the ~1.5 million deportees really did 'keep going east'

here's a video I like that shows in part how historians like Arad were able to track the deportation, establishing rough estimates for how many people went to each camp, decades before the discovery of the Hofle telegram which lists precise numbers.

mrolonzo said:
But us doing corpse math is.....weird?
Click to expand...
Yeah in my opinion. It's too hypothetical to be very useful to either side. The crema at Auschwitz were destroyed, so we have no way of determining their true capabilities. Even if we were able to reconstruct them to approx spec, we still couldn't be sure without testing them with actual fatty bodies, emaciated bodies, etc.

And from what I've seen, the science you use is hardly ironclad. I'll reference here the conclusion of this essay from probably the most accredited denier in this field

1658052279676.png

In light of this debate, it's interesting Rudolf doesn't really touch the incineration issue as far as I can see.
 
Last edited:
Chugger said:
you seem to know a lot so maybe you can be the first denier here to provide any evidence the ~1.5 million deportees really did 'keep going east'

here's a video I like that shows in part how historians like Arad were able to track the deportation, establishing rough estimates for how many people went to each camp, decades before the discovery of the Hofle telegram which lists precise numbers.


Yeah in my opinion. It's too hypothetical to be very useful to either side. The crema at Auschwitz were destroyed, so we have no way of determining their true capabilities. Even if we were able to reconstruct them to approx spec, we still couldn't be sure without testing them with actual fatty bodies, emaciated bodies, etc.

And from what I've seen, the science you use is hardly ironclad. I'll reference here the conclusion of this essay from probably the most accredited denier in this field

View attachment 3499745
In light of this debate, it's interesting Rudolf doesn't really touch the incineration issue as far as I can see.
Click to expand...

1/ We don't have everything as yet, what we have is:
Hard evidence of individual Jews ending up east as well as everywhere else.
Indications that there were actually not a few camps, but hundreds of little camps in Belarus much like there was in Germany.
Hard evidence that even in the heart of the killing zone AB Jews were in fact being released and /or treated.
Hard evidence that the allegations of murder by gas were rubbish.

When the Moscow archives became accessible revisionists got hold of them and studied them. Going around eastern Europe, digging graves, asking for names, questioning stories, is a far different proposition. Of course it's reasonable to do further digs on say Treblinka for example. But this was prevented. Nevertheless, this subject is very very deep and much research is ongoing as you well know.

2/ You're right. Rudolf doesn't touch incineration. It is Mattogno who did an extensive study on the ovens.

2a/ Your opinion that corpse math is illegitimate while mass murder math is legitimate is complete bunk. Moreover your opinion doesn't carry any greater weight than anyone else's. You don't know more than me or anyone in this thread or on codoh or rodoh. I suggest you find more humility within your soul.

3/You've just referenced the movie Shoah my dude which shows Raul Hilberg as well as Arad. I take it you've not seen One Third?

4/Rudolf being the excellent scientist he actually is, is again making a scientific conclusion where nothing is ever really 100%. That doesn't mean he thinks there's a problem with revisionism. Revisionism simply uses limited conclusions from exacting study in one area, then from another area, or angle, and so on.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Green Man, Certified_Autist and JohnDoe
Stabmaster Arson said:
The holocaust is just cracker on cracker violence, who gives a fuck.
Click to expand...
Have you ever heard the idiom; “you are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts”?

mrolonzo said:
Why are you quoting Yitzak Arad at me?

Do you think because you picked up a book about the holocaust you've solved the case?

The camps were part of an operation called Aktion Rheinhard, which was to tax Jews of their valuables on their way out of the Reich.
Click to expand...
Bullshit. If you are so confident; show me a citation. A source. Like I have done for you.

Edit: here’s another! I can literally put a new source describing Aktion Reinhard in every post I write for the thread. Can you give me even one citation that isn’t pulled out your ass??

How far up does this go to you? Do you think numerous archives of Holocaust evidence, which were continuously maintained since the end of the war by various institutions (Jewish Holocaust museums, universities, etc.) are fake news? Do you think the Americans and the Soviets (two countries who were in competition before the war even ended) colluded with each other to provide false accounts of the camps each army liberated?

Occam’s Razor bro.
 
Last edited:
mrolonzo said:
Hard evidence of individual Jews ending up east as well as everywhere else.
Click to expand...
Ok name an individual Jew deported in Action Reinhardt that made it "east". This was your claim. There's a challenge here which I think is still ongoing. http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2011/07/challenge-to-supporters-of-revisionist.html
mrolonzo said:
You're right. Rudolf doesn't touch incineration. It is Mattogno who did an extensive study on the ovens.
Click to expand...
Too bad. Rudolf has a PHD level chem background.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back