"Revisionists cannot work out how the Holocaust happened"...

[HansHill]

Nessie, you don't have a big enough mop to clean all that mess you made up.

We all saw that.

He's tripling down

I suspect Dr sanitycheck's google notifications are hopping right now to come do an emergency clean up operation

[Nessie]

....

There are three categories of people as I see it

....
3) Rabid affirmers - This category is the redheaded stepchild, who recognise and regurgitate names, dates, maps, and other surface level prompts much like an AI output generator, however they completely misunderstand the Holocaust by you know, affirming it.

Our friend Nessie here is category 3, obviously.

...

What you, call regurgitation, is the presentation of evidence to prove what happened. You cannot do that.

[Archie]

You used square meter, to discuss a volume. I switched to the more appropriate m3 and showed how much you were exaggerating, by using your strange square meter calculation.

600,000 bodies/5,490 sq meters = 109.3 bodies per square meter
600,000 bodies/21,310 cu meters = 28.2 bodies per cubic meter

That you think the 109 is an "exaggeration" just because it is a larger number is hilarious to me.

There's no contradiction in these numbers. The ratio between the two metrics is simply the average depth. Area captures most of the variation in grave size and it is much easier to estimate than volume, so that's why I tend to use it. But use whichever you want. It makes no difference. It will actually be harder for you to use volume since you will not be able to find very many excavations that report volume.

No. That is because the mass graves are either individually buried corpses, such as the vast WWI cemeteries, or they are pits, such as plague graves found during archaeological excavations or building work, where the corpses have decomposed leaving skeletons and maybe some personal effects, or they have not been disturbed.

No mass grave has been treated the way the Nazis treated theirs, by exhuming and cremating the corpses.

Ok, so you are admitting the implied density is totally unprecedented. You are unable to supply any data whatsoever to support your assumptions. Your excuse for this failure does not follow at all. Subsequent cremation is neither here nor there. We are talking about the initial burial here. I want you to show me a non-Holocaust grave with a comparable density. Even if the bodies are totally decomposed, you can still estimate the number of bodies from the bones (skulls and so forth) and estimate the rough size of the grave. Remember, we are trying to get an order of magnitude here. If those plague victims were buried at 100 bodies for every square meter of area, you should have around 100 skulls for every square meter.

[Archie]

As for how so many corpses fitted into the mass graves, is explained by Kola not finding all the grave space, plus potential over-estimation of the number dead, plus the effects of burying naked corpses that are subject to pressure, to the exhumations and cremations beginning before the end of the transports, so not all the dead were buried.

Ok, this is a beauty. Kola didn't find all the graves? They surveyed the whole camp and 90% of it was natural strata. They did not randomly take a couple hundred thousand bodies off-site for burial for no reason. And since when is this even the story?

Just because you cannot work out how it happened, does not therefore mean it did not happen.

If our reasoning is sound, then, yeah, it does. Or if you want to be technical you can say that it is extremely unlikely to have happened. I will be generous and acknowledge there is some minute probability that I am wrong and that they ground up and compacted all the bodies in order to make them fit. But I will play the odds on this one.

[Nessie]

You used square meter, to discuss a volume. I switched to the more appropriate m3 and showed how much you were exaggerating, by using your strange square meter calculation.

600,000 bodies/5,490 sq meters = 109.3 bodies per square meter
600,000 bodies/21,310 cu meters = 28.2 bodies per cubic meter

That you think the 109 is an "exaggeration" just because it is a larger number is hilarious to me.

You are using it, because it is the highest number you can come up with, to help support your argument from incredulity.

There's no contradiction in these numbers. The ratio between the two metrics is simply the average depth. Area captures most of the variation in grave size and it is much easier to estimate than volume, so that's why I tend to use it. But use whichever you want. It makes no difference. It will actually be harder for you to use volume since you will not be able to find very many excavations that report volume.

Indeed, there as I say, the AR camps & Chelmno are unlike any other mass grave site.

No. That is because the mass graves are either individually buried corpses, such as the vast WWI cemeteries, or they are pits, such as plague graves found during archaeological excavations or building work, where the corpses have decomposed leaving skeletons and maybe some personal effects, or they have not been disturbed.

No mass grave has been treated the way the Nazis treated theirs, by exhuming and cremating the corpses.

Ok, so you are admitting the implied density is totally unprecedented.

Yes. There is no other report, in history, of a mass grave that is full of naked corpses, dumped on top of each other, that then gets exhumed and the corpses cremated. I could then add in, and the site is the left guarded.

You are unable to supply any data whatsoever to support your assumptions. Your excuse for this failure does not follow at all.

I can supply witness estimations of the grave sizes, number and locations and the results of archaeological surveys of those areas. It is typical of your dishonest approach, that you suggest I have nothing whatsoever to support me. You do that to distract from your zero evidence.

Subsequent cremation is neither here nor there. We are talking about the initial burial here.

The subsequent cremation, required exhumation, which will likely affect the area, as the graves were dug into. That act likely caused the more irregular outlines found by GPR.

I want you to show me a non-Holocaust grave with a comparable density.

I have explained to you, that throughout history, no mass grave consisted of dumping naked corpses into pits, which were then exhumed and the corpses cremated. I should add the evidence that some mass graves had evidence of a corrosive material added to them.

The Nazi mass graves at the AR camps and Chelmno, are unique. No other mass grave in history, is like them.

Even if the bodies are totally decomposed, you can still estimate the number of bodies from the bones (skulls and so forth) and estimate the rough size of the grave. Remember, we are trying to get an order of magnitude here. If those plague victims were buried at 100 bodies for every square meter of area, you should have around 100 skulls for every square meter.

Yes, plague mass graves, with skeletons, can be more accurately body counted. The Nazis prevented that from happening, by exhuming, cremating and according to some evidence, rendering the cremains.

Nazis destruction of evidence, has played into the hands of so-called revisionists, by making establishing the precise size of the graves, and how many corpses they contained, impossible. That helps with their argument from incredulity, disbelieving that so many corpses were buried at the camps.

[Stubble]

Archie, before you make that concession, I'm going to have to ask you to evidence a mechanical separator at the camp and a bucket large enough to fit >600,000 people.

Then you can concede they might have poured the dead into the grave space as a liquid.

Maybe the 600,000 person bucket is excessive, they might have been able to get by with a 2,000 person bucket, since that's how many arrived per load to the camp. Regardless, that's a big bucket.

[Archie]

Archie, what do you mean by bluffing or pretending? I'm a true believer. I would bet my life on the Holocaust having happened, within some reasonable range -- millions dead, mass gassings

I have no doubt whatsoever that Nessie is a true believer. And I think you most likely are as well. But the origin of and basis for your belief is NOT archaeology. The claims of archaeological evidence you all make are post hoc. My point was that online anti-revisionists emphasize this supposed archaeological evidence nowadays but this is purely a rhetorical reaction to revisionists. It does not accurately reflect Holocaust historiography.

Modern anti-revisionists know that the traditional overreliance on dubious testimonial evidence is a major weakness, so they attempt to inb4 revisionists by emphasizing "hard" evidence for the Holocaust over the traditional material. I do consider this to be a misrepresentation of the historiography of the Holocaust which by and large ignores these issues.

Bluffing is also an apt term. If you say you have the archeological proof, that is a claim. A claim is not proof. When you are pressed on this, there is always a huge difference between your overconfident rhetoric about "overwhelmingly" physical evidence and what you actually end up presenting. In the end, you guys essentially settle for arguing that the story is not impossible. Under ridiculous assumptions. This is a very watered-down argument compared to the opening rhetoric you all employ (especially Nessie). I call that a bluff, 100%. Note also that bluffing and being a true believer are in no way mutually exclusive. In fact, it is very common for true believers to be "overeager" in promoting their beliefs even to the point of deception, whether conscious or subconscious. Overconfidence/overselling is a standard debate tactic.

[Archie]

Archie, before you make that concession, I'm going to have to ask you to evidence a mechanical separator at the camp and a bucket large enough to fit >600,000 people.

Then you can concede they might have poured the dead into the grave space as a liquid.

Maybe the 600,000 person bucket is excessive, they might have been able to get by with a 2,000 person bucket, since that's how many arrived per load to the camp. Regardless, that's a big bucket.

Like I said, I'm being generous. If someone can show me any grave anywhere that has achieved anywhere close to 28 bodies per cubic meter I will reconsider my position. Based on the data I have, I rate the Holocaust story wildly implausible, and I feel good enough about that to conclude that it almost certainly did not happen, at least as described.

Anyway, I was thinking that they might have had something like a huge meat grinder on the edge of the pit with an elongated shaft so the remains would fall directly into the pit without a bucket. And then maybe they had some way of packing it down as well. They probably could have come up with something if they had had their best minds working on it. Just because there's no evidence of such a thing doesn't mean it's impossible.