Mattogno on Klooga

In chapter 13 of Mattogno, Graf and Kues’ magnum opus^[1], with the self-descriptive title "Asinine, Judeophantic Arrogance", Mattogno dwells at length (pp. 1481 to1484, plus images on pages 1485 and 1486) on the massacre of mostly Jewish inmates of the Klooga forced labor camp in Estonia in September 1944. I’ll address his arguments in this respect because they briefly touch the subjects of fuel requirements and duration of cremation^[2] and my name is mentioned, and also because they further reveal Mattogno’s ill-reasoning and intellectual dishonesty.

Mattogno’s Cremation Encyclopedia (Part 4)

Introduction and Part 1, Section 1
Part 1, Section 2a
Part 1, Section 2b
Part 2, Section 1
Part 2, Section 2
Part 2, Section 3
Part 2, Section 4
Part 2, Section 5
Part 3, Section 1
Part 3, Section 2
Part 4


Cremation Remains

As Mattogno rightly pointed out in his otherwise self-defeating statement addressed in Part 2, Section 5, it follows from my assumption of an incomplete combustion of the corpses on the extermination camps’ pyres (an assumption that, as we have seen, is borne out by ample evidence) that I must consider an amount of human cremation remains "much higher than the theoretical".

Mattogno’s Cremation Encyclopedia (Part 3, Section 2)

Introduction and Part 1, Section 1
Part 1, Section 2a
Part 1, Section 2b
Part 2, Section 1
Part 2, Section 2
Part 2, Section 3
Part 2, Section 4
Part 2, Section 5
Part 3, Section 1
Part 3, Section 2
Part 4


Duration of Cremations (2)

Based on a number of eyewitness testimonies and a secondary source, the construction and size of a Bełżec cremation grate was reconstructed by Sara Berger as follows^[271] (my translation):

Together with some comrades and guards Gley obtained ten railway rails about ten meters long, trolley rails and huge stones. They mounted the rails onto the stones, so that these, together with the trolley rails meant to keep the corpses from sliding through, formed a heightened grid roaster. With the help an excavator and the reinforced working detachment they alternately placed corpses and wood on the railway rails, poured flammable liquid like oil and gasoline over the corpses and ignited them. The Jewish »burning detachment« had to keep the fire going and see to it that the corpses burned completely.

Mattogno’s Cremation Encyclopedia (Part 3, Section 1)

Introduction and Part 1, Section 1
Part 1, Section 2a
Part 1, Section 2b
Part 2, Section 1
Part 2, Section 2
Part 2, Section 3
Part 2, Section 4
Part 2, Section 5
Part 3, Section 1
Part 3, Section 2
Part 4


Duration of Cremations (1)

Mattogno commences this section on p. 1416, insisting that in his statement whereby an excavator could dig up 3,000 corpses "at one time", survivor eyewitness Jankiel Wiernik^[237] had indeed meant "at one time" and thus "uttered a monstrous nonsense"

Mattogno’s Cremation Encyclopedia (Part 2, Section 5)

Introduction and Part 1, Section 1
Part 1, Section 2a
Part 1, Section 2b
Part 2, Section 1
Part 2, Section 2
Part 2, Section 3
Part 2, Section 4
Part 2, Section 5
Part 3, Section 1
Part 3, Section 2
Part 4


Fuel requirements (5)

In the context of my previous calculations of gasoline requirements for burning corpses at the extermination camps (table 8.4 on p. 486 of the critique), I referred to the cremation of corpses on the Dresden Altmarkt, in which the main combustion fuel was gasoline. The Dresden pyres, as we have seen already, pose a big problem for Mattogno, and his utterances in this respect are accordingly incoherent and even counterproductive.

Mattogno’s Cremation Encyclopedia (Part 2, Section 4)

Introduction and Part 1, Section 1
Part 1, Section 2a
Part 1, Section 2b
Part 2, Section 1
Part 2, Section 2
Part 2, Section 3
Part 2, Section 4
Part 2, Section 5
Part 3, Section 1
Part 3, Section 2
Part 4


Fuel requirements (4)

As concerns the Minnesota Starvation Experiment (MSE) data, Mattogno complains that I "unbelievably" think the MSE volunteers lost 9.1 kg of their fat, without mentioning that I took these 9.1 kg directly from his writings about Sobibór^[173]

Mattogno’s Cremation Encyclopedia (Part 2, Section 3)

Introduction and Part 1, Section 1
Part 1, Section 2a
Part 1, Section 2b
Part 2, Section 1
Part 2, Section 2
Part 2, Section 3
Part 2, Section 4
Part 2, Section 5
Part 3, Section 1
Part 3, Section 2
Part 4


Fuel requirements (3)

In what concerns the effects that dehydration during the decomposition process on the one hand and malnutrition on the other had on fuel requirements, Mattogno (p. 1384) takes issue with the following statement on pp. 469f. of the critique, conveniently leaving out the first sentence (highlighted below) from his quote:

In the later stages of the decomposition process, butyric fermentation and dry decay, a corpse is left without most, and finally without all, of the water that makes up most of the human organism. One would expect this to positively influence external fuel requirements in two respects, one being the much lower mass to be burned and the other that little or no heat is expended in evaporating body water. This assumption is supported by evidence whereby at Treblinka extermination camp corpses removed from the graves required less fuel for burning than fresh corpses.

Mattogno’s Cremation Encyclopedia (Part 2, Section 2)

Introduction and Part 1, Section 1
Part 1, Section 2a
Part 1, Section 2b
Part 2, Section 1
Part 2, Section 2
Part 2, Section 3
Part 2, Section 4
Part 2, Section 5
Part 3, Section 1
Part 3, Section 2
Part 4


Fuel requirements (2)

On p. 136 of MGK’s Sobibór book Mattogno had dismissed as possible indicators of fuel requirements in mass cremation a number of directives stating fuel requirements "either because they also mention fuels other than wood (straw, coal, liquid fuels) or because they refer to the initial layout of the pyre, allowing for the addition of fuel depending upon the progress of the incineration" – hardly a convincing argument, as I pointed out in the critique (note 105 of p. 462). He then postulated that the only reliable data refer to the operational results of the Air Curtain Burner, and presented a source about air curtain incinerations in which the fuel consumption had been 3.04 kg of timber per kg of carcass.

Mattogno’s Cremation Encyclopedia (Part 2, Section 1)

Introduction and Part 1, Section 1
Part 1, Section 2a
Part 1, Section 2b
Part 2, Section 1
Part 2, Section 2
Part 2, Section 3
Part 2, Section 4
Part 2, Section 5
Part 3, Section 1
Part 3, Section 2
Part 4


Fuel requirements (1)

Part 2 of this series addresses fuel requirements for cremating the murdered deportees at the Aktion Reinhard(t) camps and at Chełmno.

On "Revisionist" error nitpicking (7)

On "Revisionist" error nitpicking (1)

On "Revisionist" error nitpicking (2)

On "Revisionist" error nitpicking (3)

On "Revisionist" error nitpicking (4)

On "Revisionist" error nitpicking (5.1)

On "Revisionist" error nitpicking (5.2)

On "Revisionist" error nitpicking (6)

This blog will address Friedrich Jansson’s latest bid for "Revisionist" glory, which bears the title Memo for the controversial bloggers, part Vd: Dresden pyres, gasoline as a fuel for cremation, and High Bishopton farm

On "Revisionist" error nitpicking (5.2)

On "Revisionist" error nitpicking (1)

On "Revisionist" error nitpicking (2)

On "Revisionist" error nitpicking (3)

On "Revisionist" error nitpicking (4)

On "Revisionist" error nitpicking (5.1)

On "Revisionist" error nitpicking (6)

On "Revisionist" error nitpicking (7)

In this blog I discuss what Jansson calls the "vital question" in his blog Memo for the controversial bloggers, part Vb: Lothes and Profé’s carbonization experiments with anthrax carcasses, i.e. the question "whether Muehlenkamp is correct in asserting that Lothes and Profé achieved complete cremation, or whether Carlo Mattogno was correct in assuming[109] that their experiments aimed only at more or less complete carbonization".

The present blog includes graphic images, which may be disturbing to some readers.

On "Revisionist" error nitpicking (2)

On "Revisionist" error nitpicking (1)

On "Revisionist" error nitpicking (3)

On "Revisionist" error nitpicking (4)

On "Revisionist" error nitpicking (5.1)

On "Revisionist" error nitpicking (5.2)

´ On "Revisionist" error nitpicking (6)

On "Revisionist" error nitpicking (7)

In the blog Muehlenkamp mangles mass cremation calculations, Jansson continues his somewhat-less-than-relevant error nitpicking, which will be commented in this blog.

On "Revisionist" error nitpicking (1)

On "Revisionist" error nitpicking (2)

On "Revisionist" error nitpicking (3)

On "Revisionist" error nitpicking (4)

On "Revisionist" error nitpicking (5.1)

On "Revisionist" error nitpicking (5.2)

On "Revisionist" error nitpicking (6)

On "Revisionist" error nitpicking (7)

As discussed in the blog There’s no history in "Revisionism" (I’m still waiting for Jansson to answer my three questions in the blog’s update, by the way) "Revisionists" have a big problem.

Jansson thought of quitting our discussions …

… before his obsessive grudge against Muehlenkamp got the better of him.

In what he announced might be his last "performance" in our debates, Friedrich Jansson commendably cut a bit on the rhetoric in the introduction, merely referring to "some more messes" of mine (read: some more arguments uncomfortable to his articles of faith), regarding which he would undertake one more "clean up job" (read: one more attempt to restore his peace of mind by restating what he is eager to believe and/or eagerly expects his readers to believe). Someone among his fellow "Revisionists" must have told him that he was putting on the rhetorical bullshit way too thick.

However, Jansson wouldn’t be Jansson if he had managed to stick with this line instead of again disgracing himself with at least one further "lie" accusation and his customary abusive bluster, as he tried to address those of my arguments he thought he could address (ignoring the rest, as usual). His attempts will be commented in this blog.

Jansson finally answered my Dresden Altmarkt question …

… which I last asked him in this blog.

Actually I’m not sure if his latest blog contains an answer to my question about the amount of gasoline used on the Dresden Altmarkt pyres, or rather an attempt to avoid providing an answer.

Anyway, I’ll comment on what he’s got.

The more you scratch Friedrich Jansson …

… the more the fellow loses his bearings and hysterically showers abuse on his opponent.

His latest foot-stomping, with the title Spoonfeeding the Mule, reads like Jansson is foaming at his mouth, at least the title and the introductory abuse, which is so characteristic of this lamentable individual that it will be quoted verbatim:

Roberto Muehlenkamp has again updated some posts in his futile attempt to refute my criticisms, and has again offered little but misinterpretation, incomprehension, and illiteracy. We all know what that means: it’s time for another round of spoonfeeding that dimwitted animal. As usual, I will simply ignore cases when Muehlenkamp has simply repeated himself without even acknowledging my previous refutation, and while pretending that I had not addressed an issue. (He may not be deliberately lying in these cases, as his reading comprehension is so poor that he doesn’t even notice concise rebuttals.)

Jansson is at it again …

… after he had, in one of his previous posts (commented in the updates mentioned here), announced with his customary big mouth that he would not waste his time in "point by point" responses to my responses to his posts, claiming (rather mendaciously in my opinion, but I’ll let our readers decide) that my responses were "disorganized meanderings", which "fail to engage with the full argument being made, are characteristically thoughtless, being written in a very short timeframe and without even the slightest effort at coherence".

Apparently Jansson doesn’t believe his own abusive rhetoric. Or then some of my arguments are giving him nightmares and/or sleepless nights. Or then it’s both, a distinct possibility considering that a number of my arguments remain unaddressed and a few questions I asked him directly (one of them at least twice) remain unanswered.

Anyway, here we have the latest of Jansson’s "Muehlenkamp this, Muehlenkamp that" productions, with the inevitable baseless accusations of dishonesty ("imposture", "misleading rhetoric", "fundamental lack of regard for the truth") that I attribute to Jansson’s self-projection and/or to the intellectual dishonesty he has been displaying himself throughout our discussions, most prominently in the writings commented in my update of the blog Friedrich Jansson proudly presents …. So let’s see what he’s got this time.

Friedrich Jansson freaked out …

… in two hysterical posts with the telling titles (telling in what they reveal about Jansson’s character, or lack thereof) Muehlenkamp doubles down on stupid and Muehlenkamp lies about Provan. His carpet-biting rage is quite amusing. What follows is my response to Jansson’s hollering in the earlier of these blogs; another blog will address the latter.

Friedrich Jansson changes the subject

Apparently unable to respond to my previous blog, addressing his arguments regarding burial space at the AR camps and the Paris Cimetière des Saints-Innocents, Friedrich Jansson swiftly changed the subject from burial to cremation.