August Stundie Finals

[CaptainHowdy]

A log of fresh wood isn't easy to ignite, you can't really light it with a match and need some sort of dry cinder to get it to burn. Thar additional fuel would be instrumental to cook off enough water in the moist log to allow it to burn on its own. Once it burns on its own, it is capable to cook off the rest of its own water, and then to dry another moist log. I.e. a sustainable fire.

That's why some people might say that fresh wood just plain sucks as a fuel source.

It's basically the same with corpses: They have a positive energy output, but start out too "wet" to burn. So you need some external fuel to dry the first corps and make it burn. Once you got a few burning, and are skillful, you can pile more on top and won't need more external fuel.

So burning single corpses isn't really feasible without adding fuel till the end. Burning hundreds of corpses however is energetically self-sustaining if you pile them right and look to it that you don't let too much fat drip and run away.

Do you have any scientific literature that supports your belief that you can burn hundreds of corpses in a self-sustaining fire?

The SS men at the KZs had lots of practice stuffing their mufflers efficiently.

Are you talking about burning bodies in a big bonfire or in a crematorium?

 

[TheRedWorm]

That's why some people might say that fresh wood just plain sucks as a fuel source.



Do you have any scientific literature that supports your belief that you can burn hundreds of corpses in a self-sustaining fire?
Are you talking about burning bodies in a big bonfire or in a crematorium?

How about the fact that the Nazis did precisely that? Just because you don't like a fact does not make said fact not true.

 

[Robrob]

That's why some people might say that fresh wood just plain sucks as a fuel source.

Do you have any scientific literature that supports your belief that you can burn hundreds of corpses in a self-sustaining fire?

Are you talking about burning bodies in a big bonfire or in a crematorium?

Since no one has ever suggested you can light a corpse on fire with a match, your point?

 

[Travis]

That's why some people might say that fresh wood just plain sucks as a fuel source.



Do you have any scientific literature that supports your belief that you can burn hundreds of corpses in a self-sustaining fire?

That was how the Nazi's designed their crematoriums. Their patents on the matter explain the fire is to be self sustaining after the first few bodies.

 

[CaptainHowdy]

How about the fact that the Nazis did precisely that? Just because you don't like a fact does not make said fact not true.

Do you have any scientific literature that supports your belief that you can burn hundreds of corpses in a self-sustaining fire?

 

[carlitos]

I'm starting to sense an ulterior motive here.

 

[CaptainHowdy]

That was how the Nazi's designed their crematoriums. Their patents on the matter explain the fire is to be self sustaining after the first few bodies.

That sounds like a discussion for the History or Conspiracy Theory forums. I'm talking about Science.

 

[TheRedWorm]

Do you have any scientific literature that supports your belief that you can burn hundreds of corpses in a self-sustaining fire?

Remember when I said that the nazis already did it, and how simply not liking a fact does not make said fact untrue? Well, guess what? Still applies.

 

[Travis]

That sounds like a discussion for the History or Conspiracy Theory forums. I'm talking about Science.

If you think large numbers of bodies cannot be burned in such a way then go argue that.

And history contains science.

 

[drewid]

440 lb. Corpse Proves Too Fatty, Sets Crematorium Ablaze

http://weirdthings.com/2012/06/440-lb-corpse-proves-too-fatty-sets-crematorium-ablaze/

 

[000063]

I'm starting to sense an ulterior motive here.

Really? Can't imagine why.

Caaan't imagine.

 

[Horatius]

Do you have any scientific literature that supports your belief that you can burn hundreds of corpses in a self-sustaining fire?

Exactly what "science" do you expect to find on this issue? Why would anyone (other than the Nazis, of course) ever need to research self-sustaining fires for "hundreds" of corpses? It has no relevance to anything in modern life. Even in mass casualty events, mass cremation isn't the preferred way to deal with the bodies, and even if it were, it's exceedingly rare to have hundreds or thousands of corpses that would need such disposal.

So, all we're left with is the historical record. Of course, that's the record the Nazis are trying to deny, so of course they won't be convinced. By why would anyone else deny the evidence of history?

 

[Horatius]

Exactly what "science" do you expect to find on this issue? Why would anyone (other than the Nazis, of course) ever need to research self-sustaining fires for "hundreds" of corpses? It has no relevance to anything in modern life. Even in mass casualty events, mass cremation isn't the preferred way to deal with the bodies, and even if it were, it's exceedingly rare to have hundreds or thousands of corpses that would need such disposal.

So, all we're left with is the historical record. Of course, that's the record the Nazis are trying to deny, so of course they won't be convinced. By why would anyone else deny the evidence of history?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8645658#post8645658


Been a while since I've been inspired thusly.

 

[CaptainHowdy]

Exactly what "science" do you expect to find on this issue? Why would anyone (other than the Nazis, of course) ever need to research self-sustaining fires for "hundreds" of corpses? It has no relevance to anything in modern life. Even in mass casualty events, mass cremation isn't the preferred way to deal with the bodies, and even if it were, it's exceedingly rare to have hundreds or thousands of corpses that would need such disposal.

So, all we're left with is the historical record. Of course, that's the record the Nazis are trying to deny, so of course they won't be convinced. By why would anyone else deny the evidence of history?

We're not talking about history. This is a question that is answered by science. Do human beings burn easily enough to be considered a good fuel source or do we "suck" as fuel source? None of the information I've found on various cremation society, funeral home, or fire forensic websites make it sound like a body will continue burning on its own without any additional fuel once you set it on fire. If you can't burn a body without some external fuel source you'd be hard pressed to say that we are a good fuel source.

The Nazis burned bodies. So what? They didn't do it without some sort of external fuel. The fact that Nazis burned bodies means they accomplished something that isn't easy to do. It doesn't mean that we easily burn.

 

[CaptainHowdy]

If you think large numbers of bodies cannot be burned in such a way then go argue that.

And history contains science.

In what way? By piling them on top of each other and setting them on fire? With no external fuel? With no flammable material surrounding the bodies? No. They can't be burned that way. I already asked the question in the Science forum and got the answer.

 

[uke2se]

We're not talking about history. This is a question that is answered by science. Do human beings burn easily enough to be considered a good fuel source or do we "suck" as fuel source? None of the information I've found on various cremation society, funeral home, or fire forensic websites make it sound like a body will continue burning on its own without any additional fuel once you set it on fire. If you can't burn a body without some external fuel source you'd be hard pressed to say that we are a good fuel source.

The Nazis burned bodies. So what? They didn't do it without some sort of external fuel. The fact that Nazis burned bodies means they accomplished something that isn't easy to do. It doesn't mean that we easily burn.

Let me just ask you a question: Did you sign up to this forum just to argue against a point that nobody's making? Might I suggest a better use of your time?

 

[carlitos]

Let me just ask you a question: Did you sign up to this forum just to argue against a point that nobody's making? Might I suggest a better use of your time?

+1

 

[Rolfe]

Exactly what "science" do you expect to find on this issue? Why would anyone (other than the Nazis, of course) ever need to research self-sustaining fires for "hundreds" of corpses? It has no relevance to anything in modern life.

Ahem....

Rolfe.

 

[Horatius]

Ahem....

Rolfe.

I actually found similar articles this morning while looking into the question. That paper has a reference to procedures for building pyres:

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
(DEFRA)/State Veterinary Service (SVS) (2001). – State
Veterinary Service Veterinary Instructions, Procedures and
Emergency Routines (VIPER), Chapter 3. Departmental
Guidance, available on request from DEFRA Library, London,
27 pp.

..but I haven't been able to find that document.

Any idea how they build these things, and maintain the burning process? Being a Vet, do you have access to the above procedures manual?

 

[Rolfe]

Not sure. FMD never made it to where I'm working, so we may not have the documentation. I can ask around though.

Rolfe.