On pages 6 to 9 of the aforementioned pamphlet's issue 186, one finds Hargis' contribution headed «Were Jewish Corpses Cremated With a Mere 3.5 kg of Coke? Yes, According to “Holocaust” Science».
After some staple "Revisionist" pep-talk, Hargis explains why the "Revisionist" arguments he will present are supposed to be relevant:
It is generally known how much coke was sent to Auschwitz-Birkenau. Coke was used for the cremation of victims, largely due to the typhus epidemics that ravaged the labor camp system created by the Germans. These epidemics im-pacted many parts of Europe during WWII. Here begins yet another problem which those who benefit from the standard “holocaust” narrative must attempt to explain away. That being so, matching the num-ber of those allegedly gassed and cremated at a specific site with the known quantities of coke received at that site, we are left with Van Pelt and his magical 3.5 kg.
Then he introduces his black beast:
Take note that “Cortagravatas” is now known as “Roberto Muehlenkamp,” one of the more notorious of the online defenders of the orthodox Holocaust narrative.
Roberto Muehlenkamp is my real name, as I can easily prove anytime (Hargis is obviously so used to hiding behind his alias that he can't conceive the idea of my having no problem with identifying myself). "Cortagravatas" was a handle under which I used to write on the original and long-extinct CODOH forum, back in 2001. And being called "notorious" by one of the most mendacious and characterless creatures in "Revisionist" cloud-cuckoo-land is a sort of compliment. Judging by the attention I get from these beautiful people, I must be giving them sleepless nights.
Hargis then quotes six posts from an archived 2001 thread of the old CODOH forum called "Claimed cremation patent / 3.5 kg of coke", namely his own OP, my post of Jun-27-01, 07:03 AM (PST), his post of Jun-27-01, 07:42 AM (PST), and the posts submitted by "Cat Scan" on Jun-27-01, 07:42 AM (PST), by "franklin" on Jun-27-01, 02:36 AM (PST) and by "DvdThomas" on Jun-30-01, 07:54 AM (PST). The post by "Cat Scan" was a response to my post, and as no response of mine to "Cat Scan" shows up on the board, the reader is left with the impression that I withdrew before my "Revisionist" opponent’s superior arguments, which is the impression that Hargis may have meant to create back then and obviously intends to create now by regurgitating this old discussion.
Of course Hargis wouldn’t be Hargis if he told his readers the whole story. What actually happened has already been reported in the October 2006 blog "Hannover" Hargis, the coward, threatens when he is safe:
On the former CODOH forum's thread "Claimed cremation patent / 3.5 kg of coke", referred to in Thread 1, the following message of mine, posted in response to message # 3 by "Cat Scan" (= Ralph Marquardt, one of the more reasonable and knowledgeable "Revisionists", a far cry from the sorry Mr. Hargis from whose equally sorry forum he is conspicuously and understandably absent), never saw the light of day:1. The crematoria at Auschwitz and Birkenau were not typical cremation ovens, but heavy-duty industrial ovens designed to run continuously, using the heat energy produced by the burning of previous bodies to keep the oven hot for the next bodies. After they were fired with coke to their proper operating temperature, they required little or no extra fuel to operate. A considerable but well-documented technical achievement. The cremation unit that one muffle was supposed to handle in a given time was a weight unit, which means that one or several persons adding up to that weight unit could be put into each muffle simultaneously without increasing the cremation time. Unlike in crematoria ovens used for civilian purposes, there was no need to wait for one body to have cremated completely. The practice actually was to put the next body or bodies in the muffle before the cremation process of the previous was complete.
2. The patent application was for multi-muffle ovens similar to those supplied for Auschwitz-Birkenau and working according to the same principles, the outstanding features of the patent being:
i) the method of employing fat corpses to speed up the rate at which corpses could be burned and
ii) the fact that no fuel was required after the initial pre-heating period, because of the amount of heat generated by the burning corpses.
This was how the manufacturers described their own product in a patent application. The use of the ovens, as described by eyewitness Henryk Tauber, coincides with this description:
The corpses of ... wasted people with no fat burned rapidly in the side muffles and slowly in the center one. Conversely the corpses of people gassed on arrival, not being wasted, burned better in the center muffle. During the incineration of such corpses, we used the coke only to light the fire of the furnace initially, for fatty corpses burned of their own accord thanks to the combustion of the body fat.
Tauber also mentioned that when a “fat” body "was charged into a hot furnace, fat immediately began to flow into the ash bin, where it caught fire and started the combustion of the body." Similar descriptions of the burning process were made by Filip Müller and camp commander Rudolf Höß.
The fire thus actually needed no tending of its own, in accordance with the description in the patent application, external fuel supply (coke) being required only to heat up the oven.
3. Several witnesses testified to the placing of two or three bodies at a time in each muffle being not occasional attempts, but standard procedure. Sonderkommando Filip Müller stated that three or four could be incinerated at a time. Sonderkommando Szlama Dragon testified that three bodies were incinerated at a time. Two prisoners who escaped in April 1944, whose report was based on information received from Sonderkommandos, stated that three bodies would be burned at a time. Mieczyslaw Morawa, a worker in the crematoria, testified that tests done on the Birkenau crematoria before they became fully operational showed that three bodies could be simultaneously burned in a period of 40 minutes in each of the 15 ovens in Krema II. He stated that these tests were conducted with a stopwatch by the SS. The latter testimonial suggests that, while multiple burnings may take longer than single burnings (40 minutes vs. 25 minutes, taking the Gusen figures for single burnings), the time taken by the former is by no means the time taken by the latter multiplied by the number of bodies. Morawa’s testimonial also points to the plausibility of the burning speed calculated on the basis of the already mentioned Bauleitung document.
4. As we have seen, the manufacturers’ patent application and the testimonials of surviving crematoria operators mention external heating by coke to have been necessary only at the beginning of the cremation process, never thereafter. There is no evidence that additional external heating was required at the end of the cremation process to complete it – the fuel supplied by the bodies themselves seems to have been enough. Additional external heating at the end of the cremation process may be a concern in crematoria for conventional body disposal in civilian life. It is not a concern with heavy-duty industrial furnaces burning large numbers of bodies on a continuous basis.
5. The scientific data from the British Cremation Society obviously refer to conventional crematoria, not to heavy-duty industrial furnaces. However, they show that even with conventional furnaces, most of the cremation is complete after 30 minutes (the body reduced to the size of a football), which means that the next body or bodies can be introduced before the first has been fully cremated. The instructions for the Topf double muffle furnaces at Gusen envisaged that a body would be added into the oven during the last twenty minutes that it took to fully cremate the corpse that had been previously inserted, and there is evidence that this procedure was applied both at the Gusen and AB crematoria. Add to that the above mentioned practice of introducing several bodies at a time in certain combinations at the AB crematoria, and the average of 15 minutes indicated in the Bauleitung document appears far more compatible with the data from the British Cremation Society than it seems at first glance.
6. I know of no indication that the letter from the Bauleitung dated June 28, 1943 is a forgery. Who is the forger supposed to have been, when and how is the forgery supposed to have been made? The same applies to the information on the fuel efficiency of the triple and eight muffle ovens provided to the Bauleitung by Topf on March 17, 1943, where it is estimated that, if used on a continuous basis, the three muffle ovens of Kremas II and III would each use 2,800 kilograms of coke in a period of twelve hours, whereas the eight muffle ovens of Kremas IV and V would use only 1,120 kilograms of coke in the same period.
7. Adding the fuel consumption of the four crematoria according to Topf’s above mentioned memo (2 x 2,800 + 2 x 1,120 = 7,840 kg) and dividing that figure by the number of people that could be cremated in a twelve hour period according to the Bauleitung letter of June 28, 1943(4,416 ./. 2 = 2,208), which seems to be realistic according to the above, we arrive at an average of 3.5507 kg of coke per body. The result of a remarkable technical achievement by the manufacturers, acknowledged as such by the AB Bauleitung.
This post, according to my records, was first sent on 27.06.2001 at 18:56 hours GMT. When it did not appear on the thread, I sent it again on 28.06.2001 at 09:06 hours GMT. When it again did not appear, I knew what had happened: obviously concerned that my arguments might give my opponent too much trouble, the moderator (possible "Hannover" himself) had retained my post. As our readers may appreciate, this cannot have been due to any personal attacks or other violations of posting guidelines, for the post was soberly worded and contained nothing other than arguments on the subject under discussion.
To cut a long story short, the inconvenient fact that Hargis conveniently omits is that my reply to "Cat Scan" was retained by the CODOH moderator (in all probability Hargis himself), for no apparent reason other than its inconvenient content, which the moderator obviously feared would give my opponent a hard time. This omission is Hargis’ first lie in his recent article.
The second and third lies follows suit, as Hargis claims that
Roberto Muehlenkamp [at another website] later tried answering Cat Scan with attempts like these:
The "other website" is obviously the Holocaust Controversies blog site, and Hargis is obviously referring to the blog "Hannover" Hargis, the coward, threatens when he is safe, in which I quoted my censored 2001 post not in order to "answer" to what "Cat Scan" had written more than five years before, but in order to demonstrate that I had been censored back in 2001 and that Hargis was lying about this. Hargis’ claim to the contrary is his second lie in the latest "Smith's Report".
The third lie is contained in the same remark, as Hargis tries to create the impression that I responded to my opponent "at another website" instead of confronting him on the forum where he had written his post as I ought to have (a popular practice among CODOH cowards who are afraid of leaving the warm and cozy online Führerbunker, by the way – see for instance the blog A bunch of CODOH cockroaches freaked out ...). Actually, as Hargis knows very well, I couldn’t possibly have responded to my opponent’s post on the CODOH forum because I was banned from that lovely place at the time (later I was briefly readmitted, currently I’m banned again).
The fourth lie in Hargis' pamphlet article consists in his only quoting the first paragraph of my post censored in 2001. One might argue that his "with attempts like these" remark keeps this incomplete quote from being dishonest, but this remark is misleading in that it gives readers the impression that Hargis is quoting one out of several posts I wrote in response to "Cat Scan"'s arguments, when actually he is quoting just a part of one single larger post. So yes, he's lying again here.
The fifth lie consists in Hargis' quoting a post written on Wed Oct 04, 2006 2:22 pm by "Claudia Rothenbach", with the implicit claim that said post had been the last word on the issue and "Revisionism" had won the day.
Of course this is not so. "Claudia"’s post was shredded in my post RODOH post of 4-Oct-2006 21:23, to which "Claudia" did not respond.
Then came a rant from Hargis in his post of Wed Oct 04, 2006 8:32 pm, taken apart in my post of 5-Oct-2006 10:27.
The subsequent post of Thu Oct 05, 2006 4:49 am by "Bergmann" was rebutted by my post of 5-Oct-2006 11:04, about which I will say a few more words below.
To "Claudia"’s next post I responded on 5-Oct-2006 14:42.
Following a meaningless slobber post that I ignored, Hargis linked to another thread that "ties in nicely with this one", so I dissected that other thread.
The CODOH thread Roberto Muehlenkamp debunked on 3.5kg of coke cremations then lay dormant for almost four years, until Hargis reactivated it with his post of Fri Sep 10, 2010 1:23 pm. The first response was from mentally unbalanced compulsive liar Carmelo "Blogbuster" Lisciotto, a madman well known around here who hates the guts of me and other HC bloggers ever since Sergey’s article On the demise of deathcamps.org: how fakes and arrogance killed a great undertaking and that article’s follow up documented in further blogs collected under the HEART label.
Lisciotto’s rubbish was followed by "The Warden", who asked a question that Hargis preferred to leave unanswered, for obvious reasons ("The Warden" may find his question answered in this blog).
This was followed by a discussion between HC blogger "Hans" and three CODOH clowns including Hargis. "Hans" wrote three interesting posts on Thu Sep 30, 2010 3:42 pm, Fri Oct 01, 2010 12:18 am and Fri Oct 01, 2010 1:31 am, but his presumable responses to the thread’s last two posts so far (by "Hektor" and by "Hannover" Hargis) must have joined countless predecessors (and quite a few successors) in the CODOH memory hole.
So here’s what readers of Hargis column’s in Smith’s pamphlet should keep in mind: what’s interesting about this column is not what "Hannover" tells his readers, but what he doesn’t tell them. As a specialist in lying by omission (and also expressly, of course), Jonnie "Hannover" Hargis has few peers in "Revisionist" cloud-cuckoo-land – despite the stiff competition.
A few more words now about my RODOH post 5-Oct-2006 11:04. In this post I presented my own calculations of fuel consumption in the Auschwitz-Birkenau cremation ovens during continuous operation, in order to refute Mattogno’s contentions regarding coke consumption and the incompatibility of coke deliveries in 1943 with the number of deportees known to have been gassed at Auschwitz-Birkenau in that year. I concluded that
Mattogno’s assumptions and conclusions about incineration time and fuel consumption at the Birkenau crematoria are wrong;
It was possible to incinerate 3 to 4 dead bodies from among the representative population of the Birkenau gas chambers per hour and muffle in the Birkenau crematoria;
The fuel consumption for these incinerations can be assumed to have been in line with the documented coke deliveries at Auschwitz-Birkenau between between March 15 and October 25, 1943.
It should be pointed out in this context that an article by my fellow blogger Dr. Nick Terry makes my calculations and those of Van Pelt (as well as the "Revisionist" contentions about insufficient coke supply for cremating in the crematoria the corpses of those killed in the aforementioned period) come across as not so important, by demonstrating that there had been open air cremations at Auschwitz in August 1943.
The document last quoted in my aforementioned post is a letter by engineer Fritz Sander to the management of Topf & Söhne dated 14.09.1942, the first page of which is enough to prove that multiple corpse cremations were standard practice at Auschwitz-Birkenau long before the Birkenau crematoria went into operation. This document apparently gives Mattogno such headaches that he preferred not to mention it in his latest Auschwitz screed.