renegadetribune--2020-06-09--Auschwitz: Fritjof Meyer’s “New Revisions”

In 1993 , Jean-Claude Pressac published his second study on Auschwitz , which provided even more grist to Revisionist mills than did his first study .
For this reason , Pressac ’ s second book was devastated by Franciszek Piper , head of the history department of Auschwitz Museum , in a long and vicious review .
Piper ’ s critique was a kind of ritualistic excommunication of Pressac by the official historiography .
As a result , the American and European Holocaust lobbies placed the French researcher under their ban , which continues to this day .
It was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trial , the defense did not choose Pressac to defend the orthodox version of homicidal exterminations at Auschwitz .
Instead they chose Robert Jan van Pelt , who was much inferior to Pressac in historical knowledge , methodology and critical ability .
One of the greatest sins committed by Pressac in regards to his research was that he involuntarily destroyed the fragile evidentiary basis which devotees of the Holocaust story had laboriously cobbled together in decades of tedious effort .
The official historiography had until then supported ( and to an extent continues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the summer of 1941 , Auschwitz Kommandant Rudolf Höß received orders from Himmler to exterminate all the jews of Europe in his camp .
According to this story , Auschwitz was converted to an “ extermination camp ” with crematories designed and constructed at Birkenau to carry out the alleged policy of extermination .
Pressac , however , definitively proved just the opposite : that the crematories were planned and constructed as ordinary sanitary installations .
On the basis of highly questionable “ criminal traces ” he then declared that around the end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ converted into extermination facilities .
Another unforgivable sin of Pressac consisted of relegating eyewitness testimony to a lower grade of importance than documentary evidence , even though he himself often failed to live up to the principle .
Worst of all , he accepted the scientific methodology of the Revisionists .
In 1994 , I concluded my review of the second Pressac book with the following remarks : “ In an article in ‘ Le Monde ’ which appeared on 21st February 1979 , 34 French historical researchers published a statement which ended @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is impermissible to ask whether such mass murder was technically possible .
Mass murder was technically possible because it happened , and it is the obligatory starting point for every historical investigation of the subject… ’ Jean-Claude Pressac did not abide by this directive .
He wanted to deal scientifically with the questions of crematory ovens and alleged gas chambers in Auschwitz and Birkenau , even though he did not possess the proper professional to undertake such a study .
He felt obliged to embrace the methodological principle of the Revisionists according to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eyewitnesses and forensic science , the latter must be given precedence .
In compliance with this principle , he correlated the numbers of “ poison gas victims ” with the capacity of the cremation ovens , although he greatly overstated the capacity .
By doing this , he caused a crack in orthodox historiography .
Forensic science clearly demonstrates the physical impossibility of mass homicidal exterminations at Auschwitz and Birkenau ; if Pressac wants to pursue scientific arguments he must accept scientific conclusions , for better or worse .
Otherwise , he has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and join the French historians in declaring that it is impermissible to inquire about whether such mass murders were scientifically possible.
” Faced with this dilemma , Holocaust Historians have reacted in different ways .
Some , such as Van Pelt , have sounded the retreat and entrenched themselves in the twilight morass of eyewitness accounts , where the light of science can not shine .
Others , such as John C. Zimmermann , violate science and historiography by responding to Revisionist arguments with bald faced lies .
Now a real wizard has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scientific framework of Revisionist arguments and puts Pressac in the shade by simply tossing overboard the “ criminal traces ” with which the French historian attempted to prove homicidal gassings in the Birkenau crematories .
In May 2002 , Fritjof Meyer , former chief editor of the Hamburg news magazine “ Der Spiegel , ” published a rather startling article with the title “ Die Zahl der Opfer von Auschwitz .
Neue Erkenntnisse durch neue Archivfunde ” ( The Number of Auschwitz Victims : New Revelations Through New Archival Discoveries ) .
Meyer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deviates from his predecessors in two important points .
In the first place , he moves the center of the alleged mass murders from the crematories to the so-called ‘ Bunkers ’ of Birkenau .
In the second place , he lowers the number of Auschwitz victims to 510,000 .
This contrasts greatly with 1,100,000 ( the number presently postulated by official historiography ) and 711,000 to 631,000 ( the numbers postulated by Pressac. )
.
Meyer maintains that “ The actual genocide probably took place in the two converted farmhouses outside the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Since in his view 510,000 persons were killed in the camp , of whom 356,000 were gassed , it is clear that he thinks the alleged mass murders took place almost entirely in the Birkenau “ Bunkers.
” Meyer touches on several important themes , including the basic question of whether the Birkenau crematories could have been used as instruments to commit the alleged mass murders .
He also deals with the number of persons deported to Auschwitz as well as , of course , the total number of victims .
• The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In the following I shall analyze primarily the twin foundations of Meyers thesis , which he summarizes as follows : “ Existing documents concerning camp deliveries provide new evidence about the capacity of the crematories.
” ( page 631 ) “ A key document giving information about the capacity of the crematories at Auschwitz and Birkenau has recently been found , along with a statement of camp commandant Höß concerning their useful life .
In conjunction with information about persons sent to the camp , which has long been available but largely ignored @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more accurately determine the number of persons murdered at Auschwitz .
We now know there were half a million victims of genocide.
” ( page 631 ) Meyer gives credit for his “ breakthrough ” to Robert Jan van Pelt .
But as we shall soon see , van Pelt deserves no credit at all .
Since the basis of both of his theses have to do with crematories , Meyer quotes the familiar letter written by Bischoff on June 28 , 1943 .
It states that in Crematories II and III , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1,440 “ persons ” could be cremated daily .
In Crematories IV and V , the daily number was 768 .
He adds the following : “ With his arguments , Irving was completely unable to support his doubts about the accuracy of the document , which in this case was thoroughly justified .
Van Pelt ’ s rebuttal was more graphic , although not necessarily convincing .
Seven years earlier , the French expert Jean-Claude Pressac had labeled the writing ‘ an internal propaganda lie of the SS . '
” ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scientific analysis of this document , I refer the reader to my article “ Key Document : An Alternative Interpretation.
” It dealt with the doubts about the authenticity of this letter , which was written by the Central Building Administration of Auschwitz .
Dated 28th June 1943 , it deals with the subject of capacity of the crematories .
• The First Main Point of Meyer ’ s Thesis “ In the report which he prepared for the Irving/Lipstadt trial , van Pelt supplied two new bits of information which were nothing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which was already present but had hardly been considered , the new information allows us to precisely calculate the total number of Auschwitz victims .
Van Pelt practically hid this new information in his 570 page work , hardly interpreting it , and he did not introduce it at the trial .
It is outside his area of expertise , although it does not support Irving in any way .
Van Pelt is the first to quote a document which , to the best of my knowledge , has escaped consideration until now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ letter of 28th June 1943 , by reducing Bischoff ’ s figures by half .
It says that a letter from head engineer Kurt Prüfer , who was employed in Auschwitz construction , was found in the archives of crematory firm Topf & Sons ( now Erfurter Malt and Warehouse ) in File 241 .
It is dated 8th Sep 1943 , that is , nine weeks after Bischoff ’ s letter , and after completion of the crematoria .
Among other things , it deals with the results of initial operation of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ each of Crematories I and II could cremate 800 bodies daily , while each of the smaller Crematories III and IV could cremate 400 , for a total of 2400.
” ( page 634 ) .
Actually , van Pelt has simply expropriated a discovery of Pressac ’ s .
I am not exaggerating when I report that this “ newly discovered ” document was in fact discovered by Pressac seven years earlier , in 1995 .
He stumbled across it while researching the archives of EMS ( Erfurter Malzerei und Speicherbau .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1998 , Pressac summarized its contents as follows : “ The question of capacity of the crematories at Auschwitz-Birkenau is answered in an internal memo written by Prüfer on 8th Sep 1942 , and bearing the heading ‘ Reichsführer SS , Berlin-Lichterfelde-West , Krematorium Auschwitz : Confidential and Secret !
’ The memo states that the three double-muffle ovens of Crematory I could cremate 250 bodies daily , the four triple-muffle ovens of Crematory II 800 daily ; those of Crematory III likewise 800 ; the two four-muffle ovens of Crematory IV 400 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likewise 400 .
Theoretically this gives a total capacity of 2,650 bodies per day , which was never realized .
This memo , written by the best known German cremation specialist of the time , shows that the total cremation capacity of 4,756 bodies per day , as stated by Auschwitz Central Building Administration in report for Berlin dated 28th June 1943 , is greatly exaggerated.
” Thus this “ sensational ” document dates from 8th September 1942 , not September 1943 .
This means it was written at a time when the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and thus can not be considered an indicator of initial operational efficiency .
Pressac has not yet published this document , so I must rely on his evaluation and summarization .
For a more detailed treatment of the technical problems raised in this article , please refer to my two volume work on the subject .
As I have emphasized above , the Birkenauer crematories had not yet been constructed on the 8th of September 1942 .
On or about the 23rd of August the first triple-muffle oven had gone into operation in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ practically identical with the Birkenau model .
There is no evidence to suggest that Prüfer knew anything about the capacity of this setup .
On the other hand , we know that the average mortality at Buchenwald during the period 23rd August to 8th September was around 10 deaths per day .
Thus , the alleged cremation of 800 bodies in 5 ovens , 160 bodies per day in a triple-muffle oven , could not possibly have taken place ; it is just an extrapolation .
However , this latter hypothesis is likewise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Works models in the crematory at Theresienstadt needed around 35 minutes per cremation , which corresponds to a theoretical maximal capacity of 41 bodies per oven per day and 123 bodies total for three ovens .
Furthermore they burned oil rather than coke , which greatly increased efficiency .
They also used an excellent , much improved system for introducing combustion air , which they had taken over from Volckmann-Ludwig Ovens .
The Topf Oven System was downright primitive in comparison .
Finally , the Ignis ovens utilized a huge muffle .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whose performance simply could not be achieved by the Topf ovens .
Under these circumstances , it is impossible that a triple-muffle Birkenau oven , which necessarily worked at a lower temperature , could accomplish 53 cremations per muffle per day ( 160÷3 ) .
A capacity of 50 cremations ( 400÷8 ) per day using the eight-muffle ovens is likewise impossible .
From all this we conclude that Prüfer ’ s memo of 8th Sep 1942 does not reflect reliable data , but rather wishful thinking .
Did Prüfer really believe he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that would cremate a body in less than half an hour on average ?
I doubt it , for the simple reason that Prüfer was very competent in the field of cremation .
In his first proposal regarding the future Crematory II , Prüfer had in mind a triple-muffle oven such as did not yet exist , which could reduce to ashes two bodies within half an hour .
Obviously he was envisioning a kind of oven which was radically different from anything in existence , something patterned on an installation for large @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which were subsequently built were all designed to cremate one body per muffle .
In the memo of Sep. 8 , 1942 , the capacity attributed to Crematory I is likewise enormously exaggerated .
In the previous year , Prüfer himself had stated to the SS Department for New Construction at Mauthausen Concentration Camp that the double-muffle oven could cremate a maximum of 144 bodies in 24 hours : “ Our Herr Prüfer has already informed you that two bodies per hour can be cremated in the proposed oven.
” Thus Prüfer was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Auschwitz , the same capacity as the muffles of the oven at Gusen , a satellite camp of Mauthausen .
According to a letter from the Topf firm to the SS Department for New Construction at Mauthausen , this oven “ …in approximately 10 hours , can cremate 30 to 36 bodies ” .
This was made possible by an efficient forced draught installation as well as a special muffle grate .
Even the resistance movement at Auschwitz Camp , which consistently supplied fantastically exaggerated numbers of exterminations , was content to report @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Crematory I .
A letter dated 10th July 1942 from Bischoff to Stutthof Concentration Camp states that the five triple-muffle ovens of the future Crematory II were designed for an anticipated camp population of 30,000 .
This indicates that Prüfer had already abandoned his earlier idea of cremating two bodies simultaneously in a single muffle .
In order to play along a potential customer for his firm , however , Bischoff stuck to the overly optimistic assumption of a cremation time of 30 minutes per body .
This is the reason why he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Söhne of Erfurt , each cremation takes around a half hour.
” Practical experiments with these ovens soon exposed Prüfer ’ s wishful thinking .
After the war he stated that the ovens of Crematory II ( and Crematory III as well , since they were exact copies ) were able to cremate only one body per muffle per hour .
My sources for this are the interrogations of Engineer Prüfer as carried out by Soviet authorities of the counterespionage organization SMERSH between 1946 and 1948 and published by Gerald Fleming .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Soviet interrogator wanted to know : “ How many bodies were cremated per hour at Auschwitz ?
” “ In a crematory with 5 ovens and 15 muffles , fifteen bodies were cremated.
” This means an average cremation time of one hour per body per muffle and indicates that the theoretical maximum capacity of Crematory IV ( and each of the ovens of Crematory V as well ) in a 24 hour period was 192 bodies – half the number given by Prüfer on 8th Sep 1942 .
At his interrogation on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : “ I have mentioned the enormous load to which the overtaxed ovens were subjected .
I told Chief Engineer Sander I was worried about whether the ovens could withstand the excessive load .
In my presence , two bodies were placed in one muffle , instead of a single body , and the ovens were unable to handle the load ” ( my emphasis . )
Thus the simultaneous cremation of two bodies in one muffle was impossible .
I am speaking of course of rational economical cremation , in which the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time requirement as well as consumption of coke are not doubled .
We note that the above mentioned document alone suffices to contradict the assertion that the crematories of Birkenau could have been used for criminal purposes .
It shows that there was precisely one muffle for every 2,000 prisoners ; that is to say , the 46 muffles of the Birkenau Crematory were designed for 92,000 prisoners .
According to future plans of the SS , however , the camp was to receive 140,000 inmates .
Therefore 70 muffles would have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ muffles was in fact inadequate for the planned camp expansion .
How could the crematories , in addition to processing the normal load of bodies of prisoners who died of natural causes , have possibly processed the victims of mass murder ?
Meyer resorts to all kinds of reckless calculating tricks to answer that question .
At first he maintained that the length of cremation lasted “ one and a half hours ” ( page 634 ) .
This was accurate for civilian ovens during the Thirties , but not for the ovens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cremation time was one hour , as we have seen .
The time mentioned by Prüfer in his interrogation corresponds exactly to practical results of several experiments which I carried out in my studies of cremation .
Starting with this interval , Meyer reckoned that , with hypothetical round-the-clock operation , each oven could cremate 16 bodies per day ( 1,440 minutes ÷ 90 minutes per body = 16 ) .
He calculated that , in the 15 ovens of Crematories II and III , the daily cremation of 16 bodies x 15 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with this he made the startling assumption that each muffle could be loaded with three bodies at a time .
This raised the total number of bodies ( 3×240 ) to 720 per day .
For Crematories IV and V he calculated a capacity of 48 x 8 = 384 cremations per day .
Without doubt Meyers second hypothesis ( the simultaneous cremation of three bodies in a single muffle ) contradicts both the technological possibilities of the time and Prüfer ’ s testimony .
• The Second Basis of Meyer ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s thesis is a declaration attributed to Rudolf Höß , which he relates as follows : “ Van Pelt provided a second surprise with revelation of a statement made by Höß during cross examination before the Krakau court in 1947 : ‘ After eight or ten hours , the crematories were no longer available for further use .
It was impossible to keep them in continuous operation.
’ Using a mean average of nine hours of daily operation , each muffle yields , with three bodies per muffle , 18 cremations per day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 270 each , which makes 540 total ; in Crematories III and IV 144 each , 288 together .
The grand total is 828 per day.
” ( page 635 ) The alleged statement by Rudolf Höß could be the result of a misunderstanding or a mistake in translation .
I say this because , during the hearing on 11th March 1947 , the former commandant of Auschwitz had given a completely irrelevant answer to a question about the capacities of the crematories .
Specifically he stated that Crematories II and III could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hours ( na przestrzeni 24 godzin ) , not more than 2,000 persons each ” .
Technically seen , this statement by Höß is absolutely impossible .
We know that the coke burning Topf double-muffle oven at Gusen cremated 677 corpses between 31st October and 12th November 1941 and was in operation an average of 18 hours per day .
The length of the Birkenau ovens ’ daily operation was limited by the necessity of cleaning the combustion grates .
The removal of coke cinders was possible only when the oven was not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hour pause in operation ( for cooling , cleaning and reheating . )
Therefore , the maximum operation time was on average 20 hours per day .
Thus we get for Crematories II and II a daily capacity of 300 , and 160 bodies for Crematories IV and V. In the article which I wrote in conjunction with Engineer Franco Deana “ The Crematory Ovens of Auschwitz-Birkenau , ” I calculated , in consideration of the numerous operation lapses and breakdowns of the crematories , that Crematories II and III together were in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ V altogether 359 days .
In his Footnote 19 , Meyer accepts and includes them in his arguments as follows : “ The conclusion is simple : on these 971 days of operation in I and II 262,170 bodies were cremated ; in III and IV in 359 days 51,696 ; altogether 313,866 dead who were cremated in Birkenau.
” ( page 636 ) With this , Meyer multiplies the days of crematory operation by the highest possible number of cremations : 971×270 = 262,170 cremations in Crematories II and II ; 359×144 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ With these calculation exercises Meyer commits an incredible error of logic .
He is postulating not a purely theoretical maximum of cremations , but rather an actual number , as though the crematories had been operated full blast every day with a full load , never hindered by malfunctions and breakdowns !
Here we must make clear that by “ days of operation ” of the crematories , is meant simply every day on which the crematories were technically functional .
It does not mean that they were in constant operation .
Here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ First he makes the assumption that the crematories were in actual operation every day they were functional , secondly he assumes that they were operated at full capacity as well .
Meyer ’ s unfortunate inability to think logically leads him to massively overestimate the actual number of cremated bodies .
For the year 1943 , we are able to compare the numbers which he alleges , with the accurately documented numbers .
Beginning with 15th March , when large scale cremations in Crematory II began , until 25th October 1943 , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 96 cubic meters of firewood were delivered to all the crematories of Auschwitz-Birkenau .
Since the heat value of the firewood corresponds to 21.5 tons of coke , we can simplify and speak of an additional 628.5 tons of coke .
During this period Crematory II was in operation for 110 days , Crematory III for 123 days , Crematory IV 50 days , and Crematory V 82 days .
In addition , Crematory I in the original camp continued in operation until 17th July 1943 , 125 days .
To cremate a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needed around 25 kilograms of coke ; the triple-muffle oven around 19 kilos , and the eight-muffle , 14 kilos .
If we take into consideration the mean average of all these figures , as well as the length of time the crematories were in operation , we arrive at an average coke consumption of around 20 kilos per cremation .
With the 628.5 tons of coke delivered to the crematories , one arrives at a theoretical maximum of 31,400 bodies ( 628,500÷20 ) .
I say “ theoretical maximum ” because a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consumed in preheating the ovens , rather than for actual cremation .
Using his basis of calculations , however , Meyer estimated that the following numbers of cremations took place during our period of debate : This gives a total of 95,418 cremations , which is more than three times the theoretical maximum .
According to the death books of Auschwitz , around 16,000 prisoners died between 15th March and 25th October 1943 ( the number of continuing registrations extends from around 15,000 on 15th March to 31,000 on 25th October . )
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ including warming the oven ) required around 39 kilos of coke per body ( 628,500÷16 ) .
In Danuta Czech ’ s Kalendarium , however , it is alleged that around 118,000 people were gassed in this same period .
If this were true , a total of around 134,000 corpses would have been on hand .
Each corpse would have been cremated by around 4.7 kilos of coke , which would be radically impossible under the laws of thermodynamics .
The cremation of 16,000 persons who died of natural causes corresponds easily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but the cremation of 118,000 victims of poison gas could not have been possible under any conditions .
This is proof that there were no deaths from poison gas .
This leads to another example of the crass absurdity of Meyer ’ s structure of argumentation .
In July of 1943 , Crematory II was in operation from the 18th until the 31st of the month , but Crematory III was in operation the whole month ; together they were in operation a total of 45 days .
According to Meyer ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( 45×270 ) – and therefore did cremate that number .
According to the death books , however , 2,000 people died that month .
Danuta Czech in her Kalendarium mentions a single gassing of 440 “ French ” jews , on the 20th of July .
If one proceeds from the hypothesis that the gassings actually took place , the number of bodies would have risen to around 2,400 , or a fifth of the number derived from Meyer ’ s calculations .
Meyer ignores still another significant argument , which I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the maximum service life of the fire resistant masonry in the Birkenau ovens , which , as I have shown , amounted to around 3,000 firings per muffle .
Given 46 muffles , this gives a maximum number of 138,000 cremations .
After reaching this number , it would have been absolutely necessary for Building Maintenance to replace the firebrick .
However , in the correspondence between the Topf company which constructed the crematories and Central Building Maintenance there is no mention whatsoever of such an extensive undertaking .
This provides still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of cremations in the Birkenau cremation ovens is around 138,000 rather than 314,000 .
Let us now consider the method Meyer used to calculate the total number of Auschwitz victims .
He begins with a figure of 313,866 bodies cremated in Birkenau ( which he rounds off to 314,000 ) , then adds 50,000 cremated under open skies prior to November 1942 .
Then he adds another 57,000 for the period from December 1942 until March 1943 , as well as 12,000 cremated in the base camp .
These produce a grand total @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to reach his final goal of 510,000 bodies , Meyer still needs 77,000 bodies .
He recruits them from among the “ Hungarian ” jews .
These dead bodies , he writes , were all cremated in the open air .
Of his total of 510,000 corpses , he tells us , 326,000 were incinerated in crematories ( 314,000 in Crematories II – V and 12,000 in Crematory I . )
The remaining 184,000 bodies were cremated under open skies .
He believes that 356,000 prisoners were gassed , while another 154,000 died @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at his “ gassed ” figure by taking the 315,000 unregistered deportees and adding the 40,564 who , according to Danuta Czech , were gassed “ in October of 1944 alone ” ( see page 638 . )
The latter , he says , were incinerated in the crematories .
However , since he accepts my figures for the crematory operational days , and Crematories II , III and V were all functional in October , he would have to take the theoretical maximum number for that month of 21,204 ( Crematories II @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; Crematory V : 144×31 = 4,464 bodies , altogether 21,204 . )
But , why does Meyer accept the figure of 40,564 cremations in October 1944 ?
As we have seen , Meyer maintains that around 314,000 people were converted to ashes in the Birkenau crematories .
Let us now analyze this figure .
We have already pointed out that the numbers suggested by Meyer for the period 15th March to 25th October 1943 as well as October 1944 , are infinitely exaggerated .
For the first period his calculations produced 95,418 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was 31,400 .
For the second period he suggests 40,564 , even though his own system of calculating produces a theoretical maximum of 21,204 .
For these eight months we are dealing with a total of 95,418 + 40,564 – ( 31,400 + 21,204 ) = 83,378 postulated bodies which were cremated !
Between November 1943 and September 1944 , according to Czech ’ s Kalendarium , 95,000 people were gassed and cremated , not including the “ Hungarian ” jews and those from Lodz .
Concerning the first batch Meyer writes that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , while he makes no mention of the second batch .
According to his logic their bodies must have been cremated in the open , as well .
Furthermore if we deduct the individual figures of cremated bodies from the grand total , we get ( 314,000 – ( 31,400 + 21,204 + 95,000 ) = ) around 166,400 too many who were cremated .
Who could these have been ?
According to the estimates of F. Piper , around 80,000 registered prisoners died in Auschwitz in 1943 , and around 30,000 in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have already calculated , on the basis of coke deliveries , that a maximum of around 31,400 bodies could have been cremated for the period from the beginning of operations of Crematory II until the end of October .
This leaves the months of November and December , in which , if we extrapolate the number proposed by F. Piper , approximately 13,500 prisoners died , bringing the maximum number of dead and cremated to a total of around 44,500 .
Even in this case , however , there are still ( 166,400 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cremated .
This is more than a third of all cremations that took place during the existence of the camp , according to Meyer Fritjof Meyer ’ s thesis contains contradictions which are even more glaring than those we have mentioned so far .
He assumes the number of 510,000 dead , of whom 356,000 are assumed to have been gassed .
In addition he alleges that the alleged mass murders occurred “ for the most part ” in the ‘ Bunkers ’ of Birkenau .
Since he rejects the theory of mass @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and since the story of the “ gas vans ” on which it depended has been rejected by even orthodox historiography as propaganda of the immediate postwar period , it is obvious that the alleged 356,000 gassing victims met their death in the so called “ Bunkers.
” As far as method is concerned , Meyer ’ s thesis is a black hole of logic , and nothing else .
As we have already noted , he is in fact defending the proposition that all gassings took place in the “ Bunkers.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ here that the existing evidence , i.e.
, documents pertaining to the refitting of these buildings which were not originally designed to be gassing cellars ( for example , insertion shafts and devices for measuring gas ) as well as the well-known witness accounts , rather indicate that attempts were made in March and April of 1943 to use the mortuary cellars for mass murder in the early summer of 1943 .
Apparently , the tests were not successful , both because the ventilation was counterproductive3 and because the expected masses of victims @ @ @ @ @ @ @ months .
The actually committed genocide probably took place mainly in the two converted farmhouses outside of the camp .
The foundations of the first of these houses , the ‘ White House , ’ or ‘ Bunker I ’ has recently been discovered.
” ( Page 632 ) With the above statement , Meyer is challenging the traditional theory of homicidal gas chambers in the Birkenau Crematories .
He says he is relying on “ existing evidence ” but he does not specify a single item .
It is all too clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ revision : It is the evidence provided by Revisionist researchers , whose conclusiveness he can not and will not acknowledge .
Meyer disputes the gassings , despite the fact that Jean-Claude Pressac collected dozens of documents from which he extracted around forty “ criminal traces.
” These are best described as “ arguable ” but there is no doubt that the documents themselves point to cellar morgues .
Pressac and other Exterminationists assumed they were homicidal gas chambers as well .
Thus Meyer transfers the location of the alleged mass murders to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ single document indicates that they were used by the Central Building Administration of Auschwitz for anything , not even as ordinary houses – not to mention mass murder !
Meyer quotes a “ Construction Contract of the Building Administration to WVHA in Berlin ” which deals with the “ remodeling of an existing house for special purposes ” ( no blueprints are available ) .
The costs ran to “ 14,242 Reichmarks each ” ( his note # 7 ) .
However as I have explained elsewhere , this document has absolutely nothing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ This is because the construction contract appeared in a “ Cost Proposal for Refurbishing of the Auschwitz Prisoner of War Camp of the Waffen-SS ” dated 1st October 1943 .
The reason why Meyer hesitates to mention the date is all too obvious .
Furthermore this document contains nothing more than reference to a “ house for special purposes.
” It mentions one house but not two houses , so Meyer ’ s statement that “ both houses are mentioned ” is false and misleading .
Furthermore this house is mentioned in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Waffen-SS POW Camp in Auschwitz ” dated 30th September 1943 .
It is listed in Construction Zone III rather than among the outlying buildings , however .
It was not outside the camp , like the so called “ Bunkers , ” but rather inside , along with Houses 903 – 914 .
All these houses were located in the area of Construction Zone III .
They were taken over by Zentralbauleitung ( Central Building Administration ) and numbered as housing units , as is shown in Plan Nr .
1733 dated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ used as “ Temporary Sauna and Hygiene Station for the Troops.
” In a letter from Bischoff to Kammler dated 9th January 1943 , he mentions the following : “ A disinfection device manufactured by Werner and a heater of the forced air type manufactured by Hochheim , along with a Sauna of the same type , have been provisionally installed for the troops in the existing building in Birkenau .
They have been in operation since December 1942.
” If Mayer disputes the existence of homicidal gas chambers in the crematories , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of consistently misinterpreted documents , how can he then speak of homicidal gas chambers in the ‘ Bunkers ’ for whose existence there is no documentary evidence whatsoever ?
By disputing homicidal gassings in the crematories , Meyer is also questioning the credibility of numerous eyewitness accounts .
Why then believe the less numerous accounts of gassings in the “ Bunkers ?
” The whole thing is all the more foolish because the story of the ‘ Bunkers ’ and their homicidal function is founded entirely on eyewitness accounts .
To accept the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the crematory eyewitness accounts of homicidal gassings is just one more logical salto mortale on Meyer ’ s part .
In spite of everything , we have to credit Frijof Meyer with considerable moral courage .
His article , to an even greater degree than Pressac ’ s , proves that a serious technical debate with the Auschwitz problem represents a fall over the precipice for orthodox Holocaust historiography .
Sooner or later , after the xth reduction of number of victims and the xth concession to Revisionists , orthodox historians must arrive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ historiography arrived years ago .
Feature Image : Ernst Zündel in 1990 in front of the removed old memorial plaques at Auschwitz-Birkenau .

Auschwitz. Fritjof Meyer’s New Revisions
A Review
By Carlo Mattogno
Published: 2003-02-01
The Background
In 1993, Jean-Claude Pressac published his second study on Auschwitz, which provided even more grist to Revisionist mills than did his first study.
For this reason, Pressac’s second book was devastated by Franciszek Piper, head of the history department of Auschwitz Museum, in a long and vicious review. Piper’s critique was a kind of ritualistic excommunication of Pressac by the official historiography. As a result, the American and European Holocaust lobbies placed the French researcher under their ban, which continues to this day. It was no coincidence that in the Irving-Lipstadt defamation trial, the defense did not choose Pressac to defend the orthodox version of homicidal exterminations at Auschwitz. Instead they chose Robert Jan van Pelt, who was much inferior to Pressac in historical knowledge, methodology and critical ability.
One of the greatest sins committed by Pressac in regards to his research was that he involuntarily destroyed the fragile evidentiary basis which devotees of the Holocaust story had laboriously cobbled together in decades of tedious effort. The official historiography had until then supported (and to an extent continues to support) the view that in the summer of 1941, Auschwitz Kommandant Rudolf Höß received orders from Himmler to exterminate all the jews of Europe in his camp. According to this story, Auschwitz was converted to an “extermination camp” with crematories designed and constructed at Birkenau to carry out the alleged policy of extermination.
Pressac, however, definitively proved just the opposite: that the crematories were planned and constructed as ordinary sanitary installations. On the basis of highly questionable “criminal traces” he then declared that around the end of November 1942, they had been converted into extermination facilities.
Another unforgivable sin of Pressac consisted of relegating eyewitness testimony to a lower grade of importance than documentary evidence, even though he himself often failed to live up to the principle. Worst of all, he accepted the scientific methodology of the Revisionists.
In 1994, I concluded my review of the second Pressac book with the following remarks:
“In an article in ‘Le Monde’ which appeared on 21st February 1979, 34 French historical researchers published a statement which ended with the following words:
‘It is impermissible to ask whether such mass murder was technically possible. Mass murder was technically possible because it happened, and it is the obligatory starting point for every historical investigation of the subject…’
Jean-Claude Pressac did not abide by this directive. He wanted to deal scientifically with the questions of crematory ovens and alleged gas chambers in Auschwitz and Birkenau, even though he did not possess the proper professional to undertake such a study.
He felt obliged to embrace the methodological principle of the Revisionists according to which, in case of contradiction between eyewitnesses and forensic science, the latter must be given precedence. In compliance with this principle, he correlated the numbers of “poison gas victims” with the capacity of the cremation ovens, although he greatly overstated the capacity. By doing this, he caused a crack in orthodox historiography. Forensic science clearly demonstrates the physical impossibility of mass homicidal exterminations at Auschwitz and Birkenau; if Pressac wants to pursue scientific arguments he must accept scientific conclusions, for better or worse. Otherwise, he has no choice except to furl his sails and join the French historians in declaring that it is impermissible to inquire about whether such mass murders were scientifically possible.”
Faced with this dilemma, Holocaust Historians have reacted in different ways. Some, such as Van Pelt, have sounded the retreat and entrenched themselves in the twilight morass of eyewitness accounts, where the light of science can not shine. Others, such as John C. Zimmermann, violate science and historiography by responding to Revisionist arguments with bald faced lies. Now a real wizard has joined the fray: He accepts the scientific framework of Revisionist arguments and puts Pressac in the shade by simply tossing overboard the “criminal traces” with which the French historian attempted to prove homicidal gassings in the Birkenau crematories.
The Revisions of Fritjof Meyer
In May 2002, Fritjof Meyer, former chief editor of the Hamburg news magazine “Der Spiegel,” published a rather startling article with the title “Die Zahl der Opfer von Auschwitz. Neue Erkenntnisse durch neue Archivfunde” (The Number of Auschwitz Victims: New Revelations Through New Archival Discoveries). Meyer defends the thesis of homicidal gassings but deviates from his predecessors in two important points. In the first place, he moves the center of the alleged mass murders from the crematories to the so-called ‘Bunkers’ of Birkenau. In the second place, he lowers the number of Auschwitz victims to 510,000. This contrasts greatly with 1,100,000 (the number presently postulated by official historiography) and 711,000 to 631,000 (the numbers postulated by Pressac.).
Meyer maintains that “The actual genocide probably took place in the two converted farmhouses outside the camp” (page 632). Since in his view 510,000 persons were killed in the camp, of whom 356,000 were gassed, it is clear that he thinks the alleged mass murders took place almost entirely in the Birkenau “Bunkers.”
Meyer touches on several important themes, including the basic question of whether the Birkenau crematories could have been used as instruments to commit the alleged mass murders. He also deals with the number of persons deported to Auschwitz as well as, of course, the total number of victims.
The Two Foundations of Meyer’s Revisions
In the following I shall analyze primarily the twin foundations of Meyers thesis, which he summarizes as follows:
“Existing documents concerning camp deliveries provide new evidence about the capacity of the crematories.” (page 631)
He continues:
“A key document giving information about the capacity of the crematories at Auschwitz and Birkenau has recently been found, along with a statement of camp commandant Höß concerning their useful life. In conjunction with information about persons sent to the camp, which has long been available but largely ignored, the new evidence allows us to more accurately determine the number of persons murdered at Auschwitz. We now know there were half a million victims of genocide.” (page 631)
Meyer gives credit for his “breakthrough” to Robert Jan van Pelt. But as we shall soon see, van Pelt deserves no credit at all.
Since the basis of both of his theses have to do with crematories, Meyer quotes the familiar letter written by Bischoff on June 28, 1943. It states that in Crematories II and III, “working round the clock,” 1,440 “persons” could be cremated daily. In Crematories IV and V, the daily number was 768. He adds the following:
“With his arguments, Irving was completely unable to support his doubts about the accuracy of the document, which in this case was thoroughly justified. Van Pelt’s rebuttal was more graphic, although not necessarily convincing. Seven years earlier, the French expert Jean-Claude Pressac had labeled the writing ‘an internal propaganda lie of the SS.'” (page 634)
Regarding the historical and scientific analysis of this document, I refer the reader to my article “Key Document: An Alternative Interpretation.” It dealt with the doubts about the authenticity of this letter, which was written by the Central Building Administration of Auschwitz. Dated 28th June 1943, it deals with the subject of capacity of the crematories.
The First Main Point of Meyer’s Thesis
Meyer continues:
“In the report which he prepared for the Irving/Lipstadt trial, van Pelt supplied two new bits of information which were nothing less than sensational. Along with material which was already present but had hardly been considered, the new information allows us to precisely calculate the total number of Auschwitz victims. Van Pelt practically hid this new information in his 570 page work, hardly interpreting it, and he did not introduce it at the trial. It is outside his area of expertise, although it does not support Irving in any way. Van Pelt is the first to quote a document which, to the best of my knowledge, has escaped consideration until now. The document raises questions about Bischoff letter of 28th June 1943, by reducing Bischoff’s figures by half.
It says that a letter from head engineer Kurt Prüfer, who was employed in Auschwitz construction, was found in the archives of crematory firm Topf & Sons (now Erfurter Malt and Warehouse) in File 241. It is dated 8th Sep 1943, that is, nine weeks after Bischoff’s letter, and after completion of the crematoria. Among other things, it deals with the results of initial operation of the crematory. According to Prüfer, each of Crematories I and II could cremate 800 bodies daily, while each of the smaller Crematories III and IV could cremate 400, for a total of 2400.” ( page 634).
Actually, van Pelt has simply expropriated a discovery of Pressac’s. I am not exaggerating when I report that this “newly discovered” document was in fact discovered by Pressac seven years earlier, in 1995. He stumbled across it while researching the archives of EMS (Erfurter Malzerei und Speicherbau.) In an article which appeared in 1998, Pressac summarized its contents as follows:
“The question of capacity of the crematories at Auschwitz-Birkenau is answered in an internal memo written by Prüfer on 8th Sep 1942, and bearing the heading ‘Reichsführer SS, Berlin-Lichterfelde-West, Krematorium Auschwitz: Confidential and Secret!’ The memo states that the three double-muffle ovens of Crematory I could cremate 250 bodies daily, the four triple-muffle ovens of Crematory II 800 daily; those of Crematory III likewise 800; the two four-muffle ovens of Crematory IV 400 daily; and those of Crematory V likewise 400. Theoretically this gives a total capacity of 2,650 bodies per day, which was never realized. This memo, written by the best known German cremation specialist of the time, shows that the total cremation capacity of 4,756 bodies per day, as stated by Auschwitz Central Building Administration in report for Berlin dated 28th June 1943, is greatly exaggerated.”
Thus this “sensational” document dates from 8th September 1942, not September 1943. This means it was written at a time when the crematories at Birkenau did not yet exist and thus cannot be considered an indicator of initial operational efficiency.
Pressac has not yet published this document, so I must rely on his evaluation and summarization. For a more detailed treatment of the technical problems raised in this article, please refer to my two volume work on the subject.
As I have emphasized above, the Birkenauer crematories had not yet been constructed on the 8th of September 1942. On or about the 23rd of August the first triple-muffle oven had gone into operation in the crematory at Buchenwald; it was practically identical with the Birkenau model. There is no evidence to suggest that Prüfer knew anything about the capacity of this setup. On the other hand, we know that the average mortality at Buchenwald during the period 23rd August to 8th September was around 10 deaths per day. Thus, the alleged cremation of 800 bodies in 5 ovens, 160 bodies per day in a triple-muffle oven, could not possibly have taken place; it is just an extrapolation. However, this latter hypothesis is likewise technically unsupported. Even the Ignis Machine Works models in the crematory at Theresienstadt needed around 35 minutes per cremation, which corresponds to a theoretical maximal capacity of 41 bodies per oven per day and 123 bodies total for three ovens. Furthermore they burned oil rather than coke, which greatly increased efficiency. They also used an excellent, much improved system for introducing combustion air, which they had taken over from Volckmann-Ludwig Ovens. The Topf Oven System was downright primitive in comparison. Finally, the Ignis ovens utilized a huge muffle. This made possible an extremely efficient cremation system whose performance simply could not be achieved by the Topf ovens. Under these circumstances, it is impossible that a triple-muffle Birkenau oven, which necessarily worked at a lower temperature, could accomplish 53 cremations per muffle per day (160÷3). A capacity of 50 cremations (400÷8) per day using the eight-muffle ovens is likewise impossible.
From all this we conclude that Prüfer’s memo of 8th Sep 1942 does not reflect reliable data, but rather wishful thinking.
Did Prüfer really believe he could build a coke fired cremation oven that would cremate a body in less than half an hour on average? I doubt it, for the simple reason that Prüfer was very competent in the field of cremation. In his first proposal regarding the future Crematory II, Prüfer had in mind a triple-muffle oven such as did not yet exist, which could reduce to ashes two bodies within half an hour. Obviously he was envisioning a kind of oven which was radically different from anything in existence, something patterned on an installation for large scale cremation. However, the ovens which were subsequently built were all designed to cremate one body per muffle.
In the memo of Sep. 8, 1942, the capacity attributed to Crematory I is likewise enormously exaggerated. In the previous year, Prüfer himself had stated to the SS Department for New Construction at Mauthausen Concentration Camp that the double-muffle oven could cremate a maximum of 144 bodies in 24 hours:
“Our Herr Prüfer has already informed you that two bodies per hour can be cremated in the proposed oven.”
Thus Prüfer was fraudulently attributing to the double-muffle ovens of Auschwitz, the same capacity as the muffles of the oven at Gusen, a satellite camp of Mauthausen. According to a letter from the Topf firm to the SS Department for New Construction at Mauthausen, this oven “…in approximately 10 hours, can cremate 30 to 36 bodies”. This was made possible by an efficient forced draught installation as well as a special muffle grate. Even the resistance movement at Auschwitz Camp, which consistently supplied fantastically exaggerated numbers of exterminations, was content to report a capacity of 200 bodies daily for Crematory I.
A letter dated 10th July 1942 from Bischoff to Stutthof Concentration Camp states that the five triple-muffle ovens of the future Crematory II were designed for an anticipated camp population of 30,000. This indicates that Prüfer had already abandoned his earlier idea of cremating two bodies simultaneously in a single muffle. In order to play along a potential customer for his firm, however, Bischoff stuck to the overly optimistic assumption of a cremation time of 30 minutes per body. This is the reason why he wrote: “According to Topf & Söhne of Erfurt, each cremation takes around a half hour.” Practical experiments with these ovens soon exposed Prüfer’s wishful thinking. After the war he stated that the ovens of Crematory II (and Crematory III as well, since they were exact copies) were able to cremate only one body per muffle per hour. My sources for this are the interrogations of Engineer Prüfer as carried out by Soviet authorities of the counterespionage organization SMERSH between 1946 and 1948 and published by Gerald Fleming.
In the session of 5th March 1946 the Soviet interrogator wanted to know:
“How many bodies were cremated per hour at Auschwitz?”
Prüfer responded:
“In a crematory with 5 ovens and 15 muffles, fifteen bodies were cremated.”
This means an average cremation time of one hour per body per muffle and indicates that the theoretical maximum capacity of Crematory IV (and each of the ovens of Crematory V as well) in a 24 hour period was 192 bodies – half the number given by Prüfer on 8th Sep 1942.
At his interrogation on 19th March 1946 Prüfer elaborated as follows:
“I have mentioned the enormous load to which the overtaxed ovens were subjected. I told Chief Engineer Sander I was worried about whether the ovens could withstand the excessive load. In my presence, two bodies were placed in one muffle, instead of a single body, and the ovens were unable to handle the load” (my emphasis.)
Thus the simultaneous cremation of two bodies in one muffle was impossible. I am speaking of course of rational economical cremation, in which the muffles will not be damaged and the time requirement as well as consumption of coke are not doubled.
We note that the above mentioned document alone suffices to contradict the assertion that the crematories of Birkenau could have been used for criminal purposes. It shows that there was precisely one muffle for every 2,000 prisoners; that is to say, the 46 muffles of the Birkenau Crematory were designed for 92,000 prisoners. According to future plans of the SS, however, the camp was to receive 140,000 inmates. Therefore 70 muffles would have been necessary, and the number of available muffles was in fact inadequate for the planned camp expansion. How could the crematories, in addition to processing the normal load of bodies of prisoners who died of natural causes, have possibly processed the victims of mass murder?
Meyer resorts to all kinds of reckless calculating tricks to answer that question. At first he maintained that the length of cremation lasted “one and a half hours” (page 634). This was accurate for civilian ovens during the Thirties, but not for the ovens of Birkenau, for which the average cremation time was one hour, as we have seen. The time mentioned by Prüfer in his interrogation corresponds exactly to practical results of several experiments which I carried out in my studies of cremation.
Starting with this interval, Meyer reckoned that, with hypothetical round-the-clock operation, each oven could cremate 16 bodies per day (1,440 minutes ÷ 90 minutes per body = 16). He calculated that, in the 15 ovens of Crematories II and III, the daily cremation of 16 bodies x 15 muffles = 240 cremations. In conjunction with this he made the startling assumption that each muffle could be loaded with three bodies at a time. This raised the total number of bodies (3×240) to 720 per day. For Crematories IV and V he calculated a capacity of 48 x 8 = 384 cremations per day.
Without doubt Meyers second hypothesis (the simultaneous cremation of three bodies in a single muffle) contradicts both the technological possibilities of the time and Prüfer’s testimony.
The Second Basis of Meyer’s Thesis
The second basis for Meyer’s thesis is a declaration attributed to Rudolf Höß, which he relates as follows:
“Van Pelt provided a second surprise with revelation of a statement made by Höß during cross examination before the Krakau court in 1947: ‘After eight or ten hours, the crematories were no longer available for further use. It was impossible to keep them in continuous operation.’ Using a mean average of nine hours of daily operation, each muffle yields, with three bodies per muffle, 18 cremations per day. In Crematories I and II inclusive 270 each, which makes 540 total; in Crematories III and IV 144 each, 288 together. The grand total is 828 per day.” (page 635 )
The alleged statement by Rudolf Höß could be the result of a misunderstanding or a mistake in translation. I say this because, during the hearing on 11th March 1947, the former commandant of Auschwitz had given a completely irrelevant answer to a question about the capacities of the crematories. Specifically he stated that Crematories II and III could cremate “…in a period of 24 hours (na przestrzeni 24 godzin), not more than 2,000 persons each”. Technically seen, this statement by Höß is absolutely impossible. We know that the coke burning Topf double-muffle oven at Gusen cremated 677 corpses between 31st October and 12th November 1941 and was in operation an average of 18 hours per day. The length of the Birkenau ovens’ daily operation was limited by the necessity of cleaning the combustion grates. The removal of coke cinders was possible only when the oven was not burning, and required around a four hour pause in operation (for cooling, cleaning and reheating.) Therefore, the maximum operation time was on average 20 hours per day. Thus we get for Crematories II and II a daily capacity of 300, and 160 bodies for Crematories IV and V.
In the article which I wrote in conjunction with Engineer Franco Deana “The Crematory Ovens of Auschwitz-Birkenau,” I calculated, in consideration of the numerous operation lapses and breakdowns of the crematories, that Crematories II and III together were in operation 971 days, Crematories IV and V altogether 359 days. In his Footnote 19, Meyer accepts and includes them in his arguments as follows:
“The conclusion is simple: on these 971 days of operation in I and II 262,170 bodies were cremated; in III and IV in 359 days 51,696; altogether 313,866 dead who were cremated in Birkenau.” (page 636)
With this, Meyer multiplies the days of crematory operation by the highest possible number of cremations: 971×270 = 262,170 cremations in Crematories II and II; 359×144 = 51,696 in Crematories IV and V.
With these calculation exercises Meyer commits an incredible error of logic. He is postulating not a purely theoretical maximum of cremations, but rather an actual number, as though the crematories had been operated full blast every day with a full load, never hindered by malfunctions and breakdowns! Here we must make clear that by “days of operation” of the crematories, is meant simply every day on which the crematories were technically functional. It does not mean that they were in constant operation. Here Meyer is committing a double fallacy: First he makes the assumption that the crematories were in actual operation every day they were functional, secondly he assumes that they were operated at full capacity as well.
Meyer’s unfortunate inability to think logically leads him to massively overestimate the actual number of cremated bodies. For the year 1943, we are able to compare the numbers which he alleges, with the accurately documented numbers.
Beginning with 15th March, when large scale cremations in Crematory II began, until 25th October 1943, a total of 607 tons of coke and 96 cubic meters of firewood were delivered to all the crematories of Auschwitz-Birkenau. Since the heat value of the firewood corresponds to 21.5 tons of coke, we can simplify and speak of an additional 628.5 tons of coke. During this period Crematory II was in operation for 110 days, Crematory III for 123 days, Crematory IV 50 days, and Crematory V 82 days. In addition, Crematory I in the original camp continued in operation until 17th July 1943, 125 days. To cremate a moderately emaciated corpse, the double-muffle oven needed around 25 kilograms of coke; the triple-muffle oven around 19 kilos, and the eight-muffle, 14 kilos. If we take into consideration the mean average of all these figures, as well as the length of time the crematories were in operation, we arrive at an average coke consumption of around 20 kilos per cremation. With the 628.5 tons of coke delivered to the crematories, one arrives at a theoretical maximum of 31,400 bodies (628,500÷20). I say “theoretical maximum” because a very considerable part of the coke was consumed in preheating the ovens, rather than for actual cremation.
Using his basis of calculations, however, Meyer estimated that the following numbers of cremations took place during our period of debate:
Crematories II and III: 233 × 270 = 62,910
Crematories IV and V: 132 × 144 = 19,008
Crematory I: 125 × 108 = 13,500
This gives a total of 95,418 cremations, which is more than three times the theoretical maximum.
According to the death books of Auschwitz, around 16,000 prisoners died between 15th March and 25th October 1943 (the number of continuing registrations extends from around 15,000 on 15th March to 31,000 on 25th October.) According to this, each cremation (including warming the oven) required around 39 kilos of coke per body (628,500÷16).
In Danuta Czech’s Kalendarium, however, it is alleged that around 118,000 people were gassed in this same period. If this were true, a total of around 134,000 corpses would have been on hand. Each corpse would have been cremated by around 4.7 kilos of coke, which would be radically impossible under the laws of thermodynamics. The cremation of 16,000 persons who died of natural causes corresponds easily to the documented consumption of coke, but the cremation of 118,000 victims of poison gas could not have been possible under any conditions. This is proof that there were no deaths from poison gas.
This leads to another example of the crass absurdity of Meyer’s structure of argumentation. In July of 1943, Crematory II was in operation from the 18th until the 31st of the month, but Crematory III was in operation the whole month; together they were in operation a total of 45 days. According to Meyer’s calculations they could have cremated 12,150 bodies (45×270) – and therefore did cremate that number. According to the death books, however, 2,000 people died that month. Danuta Czech in her Kalendarium mentions a single gassing of 440 “French” jews, on the 20th of July. If one proceeds from the hypothesis that the gassings actually took place, the number of bodies would have risen to around 2,400, or a fifth of the number derived from Meyer’s calculations.
Meyer ignores still another significant argument, which I develop in Dissecting the Holocaust. That is the maximum service life of the fire resistant masonry in the Birkenau ovens, which, as I have shown, amounted to around 3,000 firings per muffle. Given 46 muffles, this gives a maximum number of 138,000 cremations. After reaching this number, it would have been absolutely necessary for Building Maintenance to replace the firebrick. However, in the correspondence between the Topf company which constructed the crematories and Central Building Maintenance there is no mention whatsoever of such an extensive undertaking. This provides still more evidence that the theoretically highest number of cremations in the Birkenau cremation ovens is around 138,000 rather than 314,000.
The Number of Victims
Let us now consider the method Meyer used to calculate the total number of Auschwitz victims.
He begins with a figure of 313,866 bodies cremated in Birkenau (which he rounds off to 314,000), then adds 50,000 cremated under open skies prior to November 1942. Then he adds another 57,000 for the period from December 1942 until March 1943, as well as 12,000 cremated in the base camp. These produce a grand total of 433,000 cremated bodies. In order to reach his final goal of 510,000 bodies, Meyer still needs 77,000 bodies. He recruits them from among the “Hungarian” jews. These dead bodies, he writes, were all cremated in the open air.
Of his total of 510,000 corpses, he tells us, 326,000 were incinerated in crematories (314,000 in Crematories II – V and 12,000 in Crematory I.) The remaining 184,000 bodies were cremated under open skies.
He believes that 356,000 prisoners were gassed, while another 154,000 died of “natural causes.” Meyer arrives at his “gassed” figure by taking the 315,000 unregistered deportees and adding the 40,564 who, according to Danuta Czech, were gassed “in October of 1944 alone” (see page 638.) The latter, he says, were incinerated in the crematories. However, since he accepts my figures for the crematory operational days, and Crematories II, III and V were all functional in October, he would have to take the theoretical maximum number for that month of 21,204 (Crematories II and III: 31x270x2 = 16,740 bodies; Crematory V: 144×31 = 4,464 bodies, altogether 21,204.) But, why does Meyer accept the figure of 40,564 cremations in October 1944?
The Number of Cremated Bodies
As we have seen, Meyer maintains that around 314,000 people were converted to ashes in the Birkenau crematories. Let us now analyze this figure.
We have already pointed out that the numbers suggested by Meyer for the period 15th March to 25th October 1943 as well as October 1944, are infinitely exaggerated. For the first period his calculations produced 95,418 cremations, while the theoretical maximum number was 31,400. For the second period he suggests 40,564, even though his own system of calculating produces a theoretical maximum of 21,204. For these eight months we are dealing with a total of 95,418 + 40,564 – (31,400 + 21,204) = 83,378 postulated bodies which were cremated!
Between November 1943 and September 1944, according to Czech’s Kalendarium, 95,000 people were gassed and cremated, not including the “Hungarian” jews and those from Lodz. Concerning the first batch Meyer writes that they were cremated under the open sky, while he makes no mention of the second batch. According to his logic their bodies must have been cremated in the open, as well. Furthermore if we deduct the individual figures of cremated bodies from the grand total, we get (314,000 – (31,400 + 21,204 + 95,000) =) around 166,400 too many who were cremated. Who could these have been?
According to the estimates of F. Piper, around 80,000 registered prisoners died in Auschwitz in 1943, and around 30,000 in 1944-45. As for 1943, we have already calculated, on the basis of coke deliveries, that a maximum of around 31,400 bodies could have been cremated for the period from the beginning of operations of Crematory II until the end of October. This leaves the months of November and December, in which, if we extrapolate the number proposed by F. Piper, approximately 13,500 prisoners died, bringing the maximum number of dead and cremated to a total of around 44,500. Even in this case, however, there are still (166,400 – 44,500 =) 121,900 postulated bodies cremated. This is more than a third of all cremations that took place during the existence of the camp, according to Meyer
Irreconcilable Contradictions
Fritjof Meyer’s thesis contains contradictions which are even more glaring than those we have mentioned so far. He assumes the number of 510,000 dead, of whom 356,000 are assumed to have been gassed. In addition he alleges that the alleged mass murders occurred “for the most part” in the ‘Bunkers’ of Birkenau. Since he rejects the theory of mass gassings in the Birkenau Crematories, however, and since the story of the “gas vans” on which it depended has been rejected by even orthodox historiography as propaganda of the immediate postwar period, it is obvious that the alleged 356,000 gassing victims met their death in the so called “Bunkers.” As far as method is concerned, Meyer’s thesis is a black hole of logic, and nothing else.
As we have already noted, he is in fact defending the proposition that all gassings took place in the “Bunkers.”
“It cannot be discussed here that the existing evidence, i.e., documents pertaining to the refitting of these buildings which were not originally designed to be gassing cellars (for example, insertion shafts and devices for measuring gas) as well as the well-known witness accounts, rather indicate that attempts were made in March and April of 1943 to use the mortuary cellars for mass murder in the early summer of 1943.
Apparently, the tests were not successful, both because the ventilation was counterproductive3 and because the expected masses of victims did not arrive during the ensuing eleven months. The actually committed genocide probably took place mainly in the two converted farmhouses outside of the camp. The foundations of the first of these houses, the ‘White House,’ or ‘Bunker I’ has recently been discovered.” (Page 632)
With the above statement, Meyer is challenging the traditional theory of homicidal gas chambers in the Birkenau Crematories. He says he is relying on “existing evidence” but he does not specify a single item.
It is all too clear what has moved Meyer to this incisive revision: It is the evidence provided by Revisionist researchers, whose conclusiveness he cannot and will not acknowledge. Meyer disputes the gassings, despite the fact that Jean-Claude Pressac collected dozens of documents from which he extracted around forty “criminal traces.” These are best described as “arguable” but there is no doubt that the documents themselves point to cellar morgues. Pressac and other Exterminationists assumed they were homicidal gas chambers as well. Thus Meyer transfers the location of the alleged mass murders to the ‘Bunkers,’ although not a single document indicates that they were used by the Central Building Administration of Auschwitz for anything, not even as ordinary houses – not to mention mass murder!
Meyer quotes a “Construction Contract of the Building Administration to WVHA in Berlin” which deals with the “remodeling of an existing house for special purposes” (no blueprints are available). The costs ran to “14,242 Reichmarks each” (his note #7). However as I have explained elsewhere, this document has absolutely nothing to do with the alleged ‘Bunkers.’ This is because the construction contract appeared in a “Cost Proposal for Refurbishing of the Auschwitz Prisoner of War Camp of the Waffen-SS” dated 1st October 1943. The reason why Meyer hesitates to mention the date is all too obvious. Furthermore this document contains nothing more than reference to a “house for special purposes.” It mentions one house but not two houses, so Meyer’s statement that “both houses are mentioned” is false and misleading. Furthermore this house is mentioned in the “Preliminary Report on Enlargement of the Waffen-SS POW Camp in Auschwitz” dated 30th September 1943. It is listed in Construction Zone III rather than among the outlying buildings, however. It was not outside the camp, like the so called “Bunkers,” but rather inside, along with Houses 903 – 914. All these houses were located in the area of Construction Zone III. They were taken over by Zentralbauleitung (Central Building Administration) and numbered as housing units, as is shown in Plan Nr. 1733 dated 5th October 1942. The house was used as “Temporary Sauna and Hygiene Station for the Troops.” In a letter from Bischoff to Kammler dated 9th January 1943, he mentions the following:
“A disinfection device manufactured by Werner and a heater of the forced air type manufactured by Hochheim, along with a Sauna of the same type, have been provisionally installed for the troops in the existing building in Birkenau. They have been in operation since December 1942.”
If Mayer disputes the existence of homicidal gas chambers in the crematories, for which the Exterminationists have produced dozens of consistently misinterpreted documents, how can he then speak of homicidal gas chambers in the ‘Bunkers’ for whose existence there is no documentary evidence whatsoever?
By disputing homicidal gassings in the crematories, Meyer is also questioning the credibility of numerous eyewitness accounts. Why then believe the less numerous accounts of gassings in the “Bunkers?”
The whole thing is all the more foolish because the story of the ‘Bunkers’ and their homicidal function is founded entirely on eyewitness accounts. To accept the “Bunker” eyewitness accounts while dismissing the crematory eyewitness accounts of homicidal gassings is just one more logical salto mortale on Meyer’s part.
In spite of everything, we have to credit Frijof Meyer with considerable moral courage. His article, to an even greater degree than Pressac’s, proves that a serious technical debate with the Auschwitz problem represents a fall over the precipice for orthodox Holocaust historiography. Sooner or later, after the xth reduction of number of victims and the xth concession to Revisionists, orthodox historians must arrive at the same conclusion at which revisionist historiography arrived years ago.
Feature Image: Ernst Zündel in 1990 in front of the removed old memorial plaques at Auschwitz-Birkenau.
Share now!
Author: Aryan - "National Socialist" - Musician Aryan - "National Socialist" - Musician


renegadetribune--2020-06-09--‘The New Jerusalem – Zionist Power In America’ by Michael Collins Piper

Another MCP book that is hated and despised by some ruthless jews , covering a wide range of topics eg @ @ @ @ @ Promise software & The INSLAW Affair & how some jews control the DOJ & judges @ @ @ @ @ media Empires , & America ’ s Wealthiest & Most Powerful Jews .
Renegade Editor @ @ @ @ @ know the robot voices are a little annoying .

Another MCP book that is hated and despised by some ruthless jews, covering a wide range of topics eg: The Bronfman Gang, Promise software & The INSLAW Affair & how some jews control the DOJ & judges, The Meyer-Graham & Newhouse media Empires, & America’s Wealthiest & Most Powerful Jews.
Renegade Editor’s Note: I know the robot voices are a little annoying.
Bitchute link
Share now!
Author: Thanks for being a reader of this site. Your contributions make this all possible. You can send support to: Kyle Hunt, PO Box 1052, Sorrento FL 32776. Bitcoin address: 1AfppjYZddJzc2C15PXKMsnyBPjPJQezwA . CashApp: Thanks for being a reader of this site. Your contributions make this all possible. You can send support to: Kyle Hunt, PO Box 1052, Sorrento FL 32776. Bitcoin address: 1AfppjYZddJzc2C15PXKMsnyBPjPJQezwA . CashApp: https://cash.app/$thekylehunt


renegadetribune--2020-06-09--Black Nurses Laugh as WW2 Veteran Dies

Black Nurses Laugh as WW2 Veteran Dies

Well , at least we ’ re not all speaking German and the jews are free to rule over us @ @ @ @ @ ” around to give them problems , right fellow American patriots ?

Well, at least we're not all speaking German and the jews are free to rule over us without having any "Nazis" around to give them problems, right fellow American patriots?


renegadetribune--2020-06-09--As BLM Protests Raged, Chicago Saw Highest Black-On-Black Murder Rate In 60 Years

“ We ’ ve never seen anything like it , at all , ” Max Kapustin , the senior research director at the University of Chicago Crime Lab told the Chicago Sun-Times in a new shocking report published Monday .
“ I don ’ t even know how to put it into context .
It ’ s beyond anything that we ’ ve ever seen before.
” The group of University of Chicago researchers have confirmed numbers from Sunday , May 31 , which the Crime Lab now says is the single most violent day on historical record : 18 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The record was previously at 13 people murdered on a single day on Aug. 4 , 1991 .
“ From 7 p.m. Friday , May 29 , through 11 p.m. Sunday , May 31 , 25 people were killed in the city , with another 85 wounded by gunfire , according to data maintained by the Chicago Sun-Times.
” A hardworking father killed just before 1 a.m. A college freshman who hoped to become a correctional officer , gunned down at 4:25 p.m. after getting into an argument in Englewood .
While Chicago @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and looting in the wake of George Floyd ’ s murder , 18 people were killed Sunday , May 31 , making it the single most violent day in Chicago in six decades , according to the University of Chicago Crime Lab .
The lab ’ s data doesn ’ t go back further than 1961 .
A pastor of a local church and community anti-gun violence activist described that it was “ open season ” last weekend in his neighborhood , giving an eyewitness account of the situation on the South and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ particularly Sunday , I heard people saying all over , ‘ Hey , there ’ s no police anywhere , police ain ’ t doing nothing , ” Rev .
Michael Pfleger , who pastors St. Sabina Church in Auburn Gresham said .
“ I sat and watched a store looted for over an hour , ” he added .
“ No police came .
I got in my car and drove around to some other places getting looted [ and ] didn ’ t see police anywhere , ” Pfleger said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ went on to point out something that ’ s deeply unpopular to acknowledge in the realm of popular discourse : “ There were 764 murders and 12 fatal police-involved shootings in 2016 , compared with 492 murders and three fatal police-involved shootings last year , ” the report adds .
The Chicago Sun-Times told the stories of young men and women who teachers remembered as “ positive influences , ” such as Mustafa Abdullah , gunned down on May 31 during a drive-by while riding in a targeted vehicle .
Or there ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shot on the day that her family held a ‘ socially distanced ’ graduation party .
Thankfully , she survived , but faces months if not years of rehabilitative therapy : For Teyonna Lofton , of Gresham , last Sunday started on a high note .
The 18-year-old recently finished her senior year at Perspectives Leadership Academy , and her family was holding a socially distanced graduation parade to honor the occasion .
While the day “ started off perfect , ” a trip to a gas station at the corner of 81st @ @ @ @ @ @ @ St. Sabina — later that day quickly turned into the most harrowing experience of her young life .
As she waited in line outside the store , an SUV pulled up and someone inside opened fire into the crowd , striking Lofton and two others .
Struck near her elbow , Lofton tried repeatedly to call 911 for help .
It appears that as police responded en masse to major riots and looting ensuing soon after the horrific footage of the George Floyd killing by Minnesota police went viral , this resulted in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lawlessness , as well as apparently victims being disregard by city emergency response units .
Despite the gunshot wound which threatened her life , Teyonna Lofton said police and EMT assistance were nowhere in sight : “ When I needed help , to call the police and stuff , nobody responded .
Nobody answered , ” Lofton said .
“ My mom had to come from home , and we had to get to the hospital.
” On the way to Little Company of Mary Hospital in Evergreen Park , Lofton peered out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saw the “ madness ” that was unfolding outside .
“ It was just people jumping out their cars into stores and stealing and looting … Police was letting them do whatever they wanted , ” she said .
At a moment “ Black Lives Matter ” chants can be heard overtaking most every major American city , the now weekly reality of dozens tragically dying in black-on-black crime in Chicago and some other large cities ( a trend that tends to increase into the hot summer months ) remains a huge ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ current ideologically charged media debate and public discourse .
Though CNN is now devoting much air time to an hour-long repeat segment called “ Unconscious Bias : Facing the Realities of Racism ” — it ’ s highly doubtful that much coverage will be given to the pressing crisis now unfolding in Chicago of black-on-black crime , which defies many of the simplistic sacred dogmas now being advocated .
This article originally appeared on Zero Hedge .

By Tyler Durden
“We’ve never seen anything like it, at all,” Max Kapustin, the senior research director at the University of Chicago Crime Lab told the Chicago Sun-Times in a new shocking report published Monday. “I don’t even know how to put it into context. It’s beyond anything that we’ve ever seen before.”
The group of University of Chicago researchers have confirmed numbers from Sunday, May 31, which the Crime Lab now says is the single most violent day on historical record: 18 dead and 85 wounded by gunfire. The record was previously at 13 people murdered on a single day on Aug. 4, 1991.
“From 7 p.m. Friday, May 29, through 11 p.m. Sunday, May 31, 25 people were killed in the city, with another 85 wounded by gunfire, according to data maintained by the Chicago Sun-Times.”
The Chicago Sun-Times report begins tragically:
A hardworking father killed just before 1 a.m. A West Side high school student murdered two hours later. A man killed amid South Side looting at a cellphone store at 12:30 p.m. A college freshman who hoped to become a correctional officer, gunned down at 4:25 p.m. after getting into an argument in Englewood. While Chicago was roiled by another day of protests and looting in the wake of George Floyd’s murder, 18 people were killed Sunday, May 31, making it the single most violent day in Chicago in six decades, according to the University of Chicago Crime Lab. The lab’s data doesn’t go back further than 1961.
A pastor of a local church and community anti-gun violence activist described that it was “open season” last weekend in his neighborhood, giving an eyewitness account of the situation on the South and West sides.
“On Saturday and particularly Sunday, I heard people saying all over, ‘Hey, there’s no police anywhere, police ain’t doing nothing,” Rev. Michael Pfleger, who pastors St. Sabina Church in Auburn Gresham said. “I sat and watched a store looted for over an hour,” he added.
“No police came. I got in my car and drove around to some other places getting looted [and] didn’t see police anywhere,” Pfleger said.
Eighteen people were killed on Sunday, May 31 — the most of any day in the city in at least six decades. https://t.co/D7HLjXKAJr — Matthew Hendrickson (@MHendricksonCST) June 8, 2020
The detailed and lengthy Chicago Sun-Times report went on to point out something that’s deeply unpopular to acknowledge in the realm of popular discourse:
Most homicide victims in Chicago are young, black men, and the suspects are, too. But murders have fallen significantly in recent years, along with police-involved shootings.
“There were 764 murders and 12 fatal police-involved shootings in 2016, compared with 492 murders and three fatal police-involved shootings last year,” the report adds.
The Chicago Sun-Times told the stories of young men and women who teachers remembered as “positive influences,” such as Mustafa Abdullah, gunned down on May 31 during a drive-by while riding in a targeted vehicle.
Or there’s also eighteen-year old Teyonna Lofton, shot on the day that her family held a ‘socially distanced’ graduation party. Thankfully, she survived, but faces months if not years of rehabilitative therapy:
For Teyonna Lofton, of Gresham, last Sunday started on a high note. The 18-year-old recently finished her senior year at Perspectives Leadership Academy, and her family was holding a socially distanced graduation parade to honor the occasion. While the day “started off perfect,” a trip to a gas station at the corner of 81st and Racine — a half-mile south of St. Sabina — later that day quickly turned into the most harrowing experience of her young life. As she waited in line outside the store, an SUV pulled up and someone inside opened fire into the crowd, striking Lofton and two others. Struck near her elbow, Lofton tried repeatedly to call 911 for help.
(1 of 7) This was Teyonna Lofton Sunday morning celebrating her HS graduation with her family at home.
She graduated with a 3.4 GPA and is planning to go to college in Louisiana.
Sunday afternoon, while trying to buy some water with her friends, she was shot in the arm. pic.twitter.com/ojzHBwJU9x — Arne Duncan (@arneduncan) June 7, 2020
It appears that as police responded en masse to major riots and looting ensuing soon after the horrific footage of the George Floyd killing by Minnesota police went viral, this resulted in other areas of the city spiraling into lawlessness, as well as apparently victims being disregard by city emergency response units.
Despite the gunshot wound which threatened her life, Teyonna Lofton said police and EMT assistance were nowhere in sight:
“When I needed help, to call the police and stuff, nobody responded. Nobody answered,” Lofton said. “My mom had to come from home, and we had to get to the hospital.” On the way to Little Company of Mary Hospital in Evergreen Park, Lofton peered out her mother’s car window and saw the “madness” that was unfolding outside. “It was just people jumping out their cars into stores and stealing and looting … Police was letting them do whatever they wanted,” she said. “They did not care,” Lofton added. “Nobody cared.”
At a moment “Black Lives Matter” chants can be heard overtaking most every major American city, the now weekly reality of dozens tragically dying in black-on-black crime in Chicago and some other large cities (a trend that tends to increase into the hot summer months) remains a huge ‘blind spot’ in terms of the current ideologically charged media debate and public discourse.
Though CNN is now devoting much air time to an hour-long repeat segment called “Unconscious Bias: Facing the Realities of Racism” — it’s highly doubtful that much coverage will be given to the pressing crisis now unfolding in Chicago of black-on-black crime, which defies many of the simplistic sacred dogmas now being advocated.
This article originally appeared on Zero Hedge.
Share now!
Author: Thanks for being a reader of this site. Your contributions make this all possible. You can send support to: Kyle Hunt, PO Box 1052, Sorrento FL 32776. Bitcoin address: 1AfppjYZddJzc2C15PXKMsnyBPjPJQezwA . CashApp: Thanks for being a reader of this site. Your contributions make this all possible. You can send support to: Kyle Hunt, PO Box 1052, Sorrento FL 32776. Bitcoin address: 1AfppjYZddJzc2C15PXKMsnyBPjPJQezwA . CashApp: https://cash.app/$thekylehunt


renegadetribune--2020-06-10--How a jewish Congressman Shaped American Immigration Policy

Jewish congressman Emanuel Celler dedicated his whole life to opening US borders to non-white immigrants .
He authored the ‘ @ @ @ @ @ 1965 ’ which began white replacement .
This act was also signed by Jewish president @ @ @ @ @ in accordance with Jewish law .
Jewish newspapers have also described him as the most @ @ @ @

Jewish congressman Emanuel Celler dedicated his whole life to opening US borders to non-white immigrants. He authored the ‘Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965’ which began white replacement. This act was also signed by Jewish president LBJ, who is Jewish in accordance with Jewish law. Jewish newspapers have also described him as the most pro-Israel president ever.
Excerpt:
Bitchute link
Full speech:
Bitchute link
Share now!
Author: Thanks for being a reader of this site. Your contributions make this all possible. You can send support to: Kyle Hunt, PO Box 1052, Sorrento FL 32776. Bitcoin address: 1AfppjYZddJzc2C15PXKMsnyBPjPJQezwA . CashApp: Thanks for being a reader of this site. Your contributions make this all possible. You can send support to: Kyle Hunt, PO Box 1052, Sorrento FL 32776. Bitcoin address: 1AfppjYZddJzc2C15PXKMsnyBPjPJQezwA . CashApp: https://cash.app/$thekylehunt


renegadetribune--2020-06-10--Prevent Alzheimer’s by Sunning & Skipping Sunscreens

Alzheimer ’ s is largely a disease of the modern world & a big part of the problem is the atrocious advice given by doctors .
Their decades-long battle to keep us out of the sun is one of the epidemic ’ s causes .
The thought of growing old and losing your golden years to Alzheimer ’ s is frightening , but most of us can avoid that fate .
A new study has found a clear connection between Alzheimer ’ s and Vitamin D levels in the blood .
You can lower your risk of developing dementia by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ throwing the sunscreens away .
The advice you ’ ve gotten over the last decades from modern medicine—to stay out of the sun and if you must go out , then slather yourself with sunblockers—is among the worst things they ’ ve done to us .
It ’ s likely one of the primary reasons that Alzheimer ’ s has become almost the norm for people as they age .
Titled Vitamin D , cognition , and dementia , A systematic review and meta-analysis , this study published May 2012 in Neurology compared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ MMSE ) scores and blood levels of Vitamin D in people .
They found that lower levels of Vitamin D were associated with lower cognitive ability .
Another recent study published in the Journals of Gerontology in March 2012 , Higher Vitamin D Dietary Intake Is Associated With Lower Risk of Alzheimer ’ s Disease : A 7-Year Follow-up , followed 498 women for 7 years .
They found that women with lower intakes of Vitamin D at the beginning of the study were more likely to develop Alzheimer ’ s .
Published @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Disease in March 2012 , Genomic and Nongenomic Signaling Induced by 1α,25 ( OH ) 2-Vitamin D3 Promotes the Recovery of Amyloid-β Phagocytosis by Alzheimer ’ s Disease Macrophages , demonstrated that Vitamin D helps clear amyloid-β plaques that develop in the brains of Alzheimer ’ s patients .
This may mean that Vitamin D can help reverse Alzheimer ’ s , but that isn ’ t clear at this point , as the brain damage itself may not be reversible .
It does , though , strongly indicate that Vitamin D can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Aging , published in August 2012 , Vitamin D receptor and Alzheimer ’ s disease : a genetic and functional study documented the connection between inadequate systemic Vitamin D and the development of Alzheimer ’ s .
You have a couple of realistic choices in obtaining adequate Vitamin D to help avoid Alzheimer ’ s .
One is to take pills .
That , of course , is not the natural way to do it .
It also may become next-to-impossible soon as regulating agencies start to crack down on vitamin potencies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officially considered adequate Vitamin D intake , in the face of research that clearly shows our needs are better measured in thousands of units , relying on pills could become a dangerous tactic .
However , the sun is still available—and it ’ s free !
You can obtain doses many times the inadequate official recommendations by getting out and exposing some skin for just a few minutes a day .
Better yet , combine that time with some sort of exercise .
Walking in the sun accomplishes two health benefits at one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In fact , there ’ s no connection between sun exposure and melanoma , * other than for people who get serious sunburns .
This article won ’ t focus on studies that document it , but Gaia Health has covered the topic in Suntans Have Nothing to Do with Cancer , But Most Sunscreens Do and Sunlight—Required Nutrient , Not a Health Risk , among others .
So get outside and get some rays !
Just don ’ t get burned .
But that ’ s not the only bad advice that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of staying out of the sun .
The other part of that advice , to slather your skin in sunblocking lotions , could very well have something to do with the massively increased rate of cancer over the last decades—including melanoma .
Aside from blocking the benefits of the sun , most sunscreens contains cancer-causing ingredients , which your skin soaks up and spreads around your body .
Unless you must be in the sun in a manner that will cause you to get burned , then you are better off simply skipping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increase your chances of having good health in mind and body if you get out and catch some rays .
If you can ’ t readily get out into the sun , then read How to Get Vitamin D Without the Sun for information on supplementation , food sources of Vitamin D , and sunbooths .
While you ’ re at it , stay away from anxiety drugs .
Onn 27 September 2012 the BMJ published Benzodiazepine use and risk of dementia : prospective population based study , which found that people who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can be more than twice as likely to develop Alzheimer ’ s .
Benzodiazepines have now been shown to increase the chance of Alzheimer ’ s disease .
Considering the fact that these drugs are effective for only a short time , then become so addictive they can be pure torture to get off , do you really want to risk developing Alzheimer ’ s in exchange for a short period of time anxiety-free ?
Besides , if you ’ re suffering from anxiety , what could be a better way of dealing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sun and getting some exercise ?
• Higher Vitamin D Dietary Intake Is Associated With Lower Risk of Alzheimer ’ s Disease : A 7-Year Follow-up • Genomic and Nongenomic Signaling Induced by 1α,25 ( OH ) 2-Vitamin D3 Promotes the Recovery of Amyloid-β Phagocytosis by Alzheimer ’ s Disease Macrophages • Scientists Pinpoint How Vitamin D May Help Clear Amyloid Plaques Found in Alzheimer ’ s • How to Get Vitamin D Without the Sun

Alzheimer’s is largely a disease of the modern world & a big part of the problem is the atrocious advice given by doctors. Their decades-long battle to keep us out of the sun is one of the epidemic’s causes.
The thought of growing old and losing your golden years to Alzheimer’s is frightening, but most of us can avoid that fate. A new study has found a clear connection between Alzheimer’s and Vitamin D levels in the blood. You can lower your risk of developing dementia by simply getting out in the sun and throwing the sunscreens away.
The advice you’ve gotten over the last decades from modern medicine—to stay out of the sun and if you must go out, then slather yourself with sunblockers—is among the worst things they’ve done to us. It’s likely one of the primary reasons that Alzheimer’s has become almost the norm for people as they age.
Studies Supporting the Lack of Vitamin D-Alzheimer’s Connection
Titled Vitamin D, cognition, and dementia, A systematic review and meta-analysis, this study published May 2012 in Neurology compared the results of Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) scores and blood levels of Vitamin D in people. They found that lower levels of Vitamin D were associated with lower cognitive ability.
Another recent study published in the Journals of Gerontology in March 2012, Higher Vitamin D Dietary Intake Is Associated With Lower Risk of Alzheimer’s Disease: A 7-Year Follow-up, followed 498 women for 7 years. They found that women with lower intakes of Vitamin D at the beginning of the study were more likely to develop Alzheimer’s.
Published in the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease in March 2012, Genomic and Nongenomic Signaling Induced by 1α,25(OH)2-Vitamin D3 Promotes the Recovery of Amyloid-β Phagocytosis by Alzheimer’s Disease Macrophages, demonstrated that Vitamin D helps clear amyloid-β plaques that develop in the brains of Alzheimer’s patients. This may mean that Vitamin D can help reverse Alzheimer’s, but that isn’t clear at this point, as the brain damage itself may not be reversible. It does, though, strongly indicate that Vitamin D can prevent that damage./
In the journal Neurobiology of Aging, published in August 2012, Vitamin D receptor and Alzheimer’s disease: a genetic and functional study documented the connection between inadequate systemic Vitamin D and the development of Alzheimer’s.
Sources of Vitamin D
You have a couple of realistic choices in obtaining adequate Vitamin D to help avoid Alzheimer’s. One is to take pills. That, of course, is not the natural way to do it. It also may become next-to-impossible soon as regulating agencies start to crack down on vitamin potencies. Since 400 IUs a day is officially considered adequate Vitamin D intake, in the face of research that clearly shows our needs are better measured in thousands of units, relying on pills could become a dangerous tactic.
However, the sun is still available—and it’s free! You can obtain doses many times the inadequate official recommendations by getting out and exposing some skin for just a few minutes a day. Better yet, combine that time with some sort of exercise. Walking in the sun accomplishes two health benefits at one time. Why not do it?
What About Cancer?
In fact, there’s no connection between sun exposure and melanoma,* other than for people who get serious sunburns. This article won’t focus on studies that document it, but Gaia Health has covered the topic in Suntans Have Nothing to Do with Cancer, But Most Sunscreens Do and Sunlight—Required Nutrient, Not a Health Risk, among others.
*[Note: a recent meta-analysis found that sunlight exposure reduced melanoma risk]
So get outside and get some rays! Just don’t get burned.
But that’s not the only bad advice that’s gone along with the idea of staying out of the sun. The other part of that advice, to slather your skin in sunblocking lotions, could very well have something to do with the massively increased rate of cancer over the last decades—including melanoma. Aside from blocking the benefits of the sun, most sunscreens contains cancer-causing ingredients, which your skin soaks up and spreads around your body.
Unless you must be in the sun in a manner that will cause you to get burned, then you are better off simply skipping the sunblock lotions. You’ll increase your chances of having good health in mind and body if you get out and catch some rays.
If you can’t readily get out into the sun, then read How to Get Vitamin D Without the Sun for information on supplementation, food sources of Vitamin D, and sunbooths.
Benzodiazepines and Alzheimer’s
While you’re at it, stay away from anxiety drugs. Onn 27 September 2012 the BMJ published Benzodiazepine use and risk of dementia: prospective population based study, which found that people who take benzodiazepines, such as Valium, can be more than twice as likely to develop Alzheimer’s.
Benzodiazepines have now been shown to increase the chance of Alzheimer’s disease. Considering the fact that these drugs are effective for only a short time, then become so addictive they can be pure torture to get off, do you really want to risk developing Alzheimer’s in exchange for a short period of time anxiety-free? Besides, if you’re suffering from anxiety, what could be a better way of dealing with it than getting out in the sun and getting some exercise?
Sources: