The Kola Study - An Own Goal by Team Holocaust

[bombsaway]

Lol at bombs and his "layers." I honestly have no idea why he thinks repeating "layers" is some brilliant point. He complains that no one has responded when he's failed to make an argument. Meanwhile he has not addressed various points, like why Reder hallucinated 30 enormous, uniformly rectangular graves that we know for a fact did not exist as described.

I think it's very possible Reder was lying, creating uniform graves in order to justify a death toll (uniform graves make it easier to calculate) he legitimately believed in. Or maybe he hated the Nazis for killing his family and wanted to disparage them. Or maybe it was self-deception on his part, he wanted to believe in his death toll so he justified it to himiself. Your hypothesis, which is that this is part of some much larger confabulation is merely one possibility among many. That's why it's not rigorous proof revisionism is correct. The "mistake" Reder made no less disproves the extermination story than the mistakes witnesses on the Titanic made disprove that it sank. Witnesses are unreliable.

I'm not making an argument so much as challenging you to provide a reasonable narrative, just like you asked me to. I guess the argument now is that revisionists can't answer to a supposedly simple, elementary challenge, unless you're saying the Nazgul's explanation is the best one. Then I will address that. An enormous critique of revisionism is what you are doing is not proper history (because you're not actually presenting a coherent defensible narrative) and that's just being proven right once again here. You don't even have to evidence your narrative in this case, just provide something that makes sense and would be reasonable practice (eg the Nazis doing some kind of art project and depositing ashes from all over Poland into pits at belzec wouldnt really fly )

Explain how graves like number 5 came into being, just like I did above.

Surprising concession here. But you're not thinking through the implications.

If the story is based to a very large extent on Gerstein and Reder and their statements are demonstrably false on major points, then we have no reason to believe it.

The story isn't based on gerstein or reder though, eg omit their testimonies and the story wouldn't change in any substantive way. There are still dozens of witness testimonies to draw on + archeological reports + deportation records and direct statements of extermination (eg Goebbels diary, "liquidation" by Globocnik) + intelligence reports like the one I quoted from Polish underground (from which the story "as such" was first established).

It has now been 6 days and still no comprehensive explanation of Kolas of findings about the ash and grave space from revisionists. I'll remind you of the thread title. If kolas findings were truly revisionist friendly you should have no trouble here, and there would be no reason to divert to critique of witness statements and secondary sources.

[Nessie]

......

You are missing the point, which is clearly deliberate.

YOU DO NOT HAVE ACCURATE AND CONSISTENT DATA TO BASE YOUR THEORIES ON.

You do not know for sure how many corpses are buried and when cremations started. You go with the evidence that suits you the best, as you craft the reasons as to why you think it was impossible to kill, bury and cremate so many people. You do that, because you cannot do what is normally done to establish the history of a place, which is to gather evidence from people who were there, contemporaneous documents and archaeological surveys.

Revisionism is not history as it is normally investigated.

Actually that is exactly what Muehlenkamp does with his calculations. He sets the assumptions to be whatever he needs them to be to force the numbers to work out without no regard for common sense. All in order to show that if the stars were all aligned it might have been possible to burn, disinter, and burn all these bodies.

His estimations are no likely more accurate than revisionist ones. All he needs to do is show it is within the realms of possibility, that hundreds of thousands could be buried and then cremated, which he has done.

I don't need to do that. The original stories simply do not reflect physical reality and this is immediately obvious the very second you start thinking about them through that lens (as opposed to let's-all-feel-sad-for-the-poor-jews-story-time lens).

The correct lens, is to assess witnesses based on studies of memory and recollection and to take into account they will make mistakes, under or over estimate, mix hearsay with what they saw, use figures of speech and hyperbole. Then, is their evidence corroborated? The answer is yes. So, the revisionist, let's-all-feel-mistrust-for-the Jews-and-don't-believe-them lens is not an accurate one.

[Archie]

I think it's very possible Reder was lying, creating uniform graves in order to justify a death toll (uniform graves make it easier to calculate) he legitimately believed in. Or maybe he hated the Nazis for killing his family and wanted to disparage them. Or maybe it was self-deception on his part, he wanted to believe in his death toll so he justified it to himiself. Your hypothesis, which is that this is part of some much larger confabulation is merely one possibility among many. That's why it's not rigorous proof revisionism is correct. The "mistake" Reder made no less disproves the extermination story than the mistakes witnesses on the Titanic made disprove that it sank. Witnesses are unreliable.

I'm not making an argument so much as challenging you to provide a reasonable narrative, just like you asked me to. I guess the argument now is that revisionists can't answer to a supposedly simple, elementary challenge, unless you're saying the Nazgul's explanation is the best one. Then I will address that. An enormous critique of revisionism is what you are doing is not proper history (because you're not actually presenting a coherent defensible narrative) and that's just being proven right once again here. You don't even have to evidence your narrative in this case, just provide something that makes sense and would be reasonable practice (eg the Nazis doing some kind of art project and depositing ashes from all over Poland into pits at belzec wouldnt really fly )

Explain how graves like number 5 came into being, just like I did above.

Surprising concession here. But you're not thinking through the implications.

If the story is based to a very large extent on Gerstein and Reder and their statements are demonstrably false on major points, then we have no reason to believe it.

The story isn't based on gerstein or reder though, eg omit their testimonies and the story wouldn't change in any substantive way. There are still dozens of witness testimonies to draw on + archeological reports + deportation records and direct statements of extermination (eg Goebbels diary, "liquidation" by Globocnik) + intelligence reports like the one I quoted from Polish underground (from which the story "as such" was first established).

It has now been 6 days and still no comprehensive explanation of Kolas of findings about the ash and grave space from revisionists. I'll remind you of the thread title. If kolas findings were truly revisionist friendly you should have no trouble here, and there would be no reason to divert to critique of witness statements and secondary sources.

It was totally an own goal. That's why the only practical way to read about it is in Mattogno's books. The original book you claim proves the Holocaust isn't available at all. Isn't that odd?

"Nobody has responded to me, waaaaaah." Nobody responded to your non-argument. It's your usual thing where you fail to make any points and issue vague demands of everyone else with the intention of arbitrarily dismissing any potential reply.

[bombsaway]

It was totally an own goal. That's why the only practical way to read about it is in Mattogno's books. The original book you claim proves the Holocaust isn't available at all. Isn't that odd?

I can't answer that question, because the premise is false, it's available at 2 locations literally walking distance from where I live.


https://search.worldcat.org/title/Belze ... c/50149754

"Nobody has responded to me, waaaaaah." Nobody responded to your non-argument. It's your usual thing where you fail to make any points and issue vague demands of everyone else with the intention of arbitrarily dismissing any potential reply.

Basically the reason it's important to explain something within a given framework is to show that it doesn't contradict that framework. IE if Kola's studies showed no major graves or ground disturbance, orthodoxy would have to explain why and if they couldn't, modify their assertions about mass burial having taken place at Belzec.

It's not my job to offer a cogent explanation of the grave space and ash layers from a revisionist perspective. I don't think there is a reasonable one.

It seems you may have trouble answering even yes / no questions. Is there a revisionist explanation?

It has now been almost a week since I asked for one.

I have no intention "of arbitrarily dismissing any potential reply." If you can offer a reasonable explanation I'll cede this point.

[Nazgul]

It's not my job to offer a cogent explanation of the grave space and ash layers from a revisionist perspective. I don't think there is a reasonable one.

Of course you do not. You, like Nessie, appear research nothing. You are aware there were many labour camps for Jews, in the Belzec region.
Due to delays and cramped conditions, many deportees died in transit. On 18 August 1942, Waffen SS officer Kurt Gerstein had witnessed at Belzec the arrival of "45 wagons with 6,700 people, of whom 1,450 were already dead on arrival". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_trains

Guess these unfortunates, who perished in transit, were sorta burned and buried.

[Nessie]

It's not my job to offer a cogent explanation of the grave space and ash layers from a revisionist perspective. I don't think there is a reasonable one.

Of course you do not. You, like Nessie research nothing. You are aware there were many labour camps for Jews, in the Belzec region.
Due to delays and cramped conditions, many deportees died in transit. On 18 August 1942, Waffen SS officer Kurt Gerstein had witnessed at Belzec the arrival of "45 wagons with 6,700 people, of whom 1,450 were already dead on arrival". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_trains

Guess these unfortunates, who perished in transit, were sorta burned and buried.

It is quite an own goal that you link to an article about transports that repeatedly refers to gassings and that you quote a Nazi witness to a gassing. Have you not got any evidence to prove gassings did not happen?

[Nazgul]

It's not my job to offer a cogent explanation of the grave space and ash layers from a revisionist perspective. I don't think there is a reasonable one.

Of course you do not. You, like Nessie research nothing. You are aware there were many labour camps for Jews, in the Belzec region.
Due to delays and cramped conditions, many deportees died in transit. On 18 August 1942, Waffen SS officer Kurt Gerstein had witnessed at Belzec the arrival of "45 wagons with 6,700 people, of whom 1,450 were already dead on arrival". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_trains

Guess these unfortunates, who perished in transit, were sorta burned and buried.

It is quite an own goal that you link to an article about transports that repeatedly refers to gassings and that you quote a Nazi witness to a gassing. Have you not got any evidence to prove gassings did not happen?

Once again the context of the discussion is thwarted by the Celtic Warrior of the Loch. Nessie is off topic.

[Nessie]

OK, got any archaeological survey evidence to prove a limited number of mass graves and evidence from witnesses who worked at the camp who state that the cremations were only for those who arrived dead?

[bombsaway]

It's not my job to offer a cogent explanation of the grave space and ash layers from a revisionist perspective. I don't think there is a reasonable one.

Of course you do not. You, like Nessie, appear research nothing. You are aware there were many labour camps for Jews, in the Belzec region.
Due to delays and cramped conditions, many deportees died in transit. On 18 August 1942, Waffen SS officer Kurt Gerstein had witnessed at Belzec the arrival of "45 wagons with 6,700 people, of whom 1,450 were already dead on arrival". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_trains

Guess these unfortunates, who perished in transit, were sorta burned and buried.

So walk me through the process exactly (Assuming Gerstein was telling the truth about the trains but not anything else). They are burned and buried, but this is no explanation for the ash layers, unless you're saying the bodies were destroyed as well

[Archie]

A little summary of the thread so far, reviewing the points in the OP.

1) The story is that around 500,000-600,000 bodies were buried at Belzec. Where were these bodies buried?

It seems it has been conceded that 600,000 is indeed completely unrealistic.

The suggestion seems to be that only 434,000 were killed and that perhaps only 250K were actually buried with the others being burned directly.

The other attempted explanation is to assume the earlier bodies decomposed tremendously which allowed space for fresh corpses.

2) The Witnesses. Kola's grave map is nothing like the descriptions of many of the key witnesses. Star witness Rudolf Reder for example described very large, long graves, all of uniform shape and dimensions.

There seems to be some difference of opinion here with Nessie brushing off the problem as "normal witness errors," as he always does. But bombsaway seems to concede Reder was probably lying/exaggerating due to emotion. Of course if Reder was really there in Nov 1942 and saw the real graves, I would wonder why he would need to falsify his account instead of just describing the terrible reality that he would have actually seen.

3) The human remains in the graves include some unburnt bodies and some cremains. The grave areas are by no means pure ash (contrary to what some of you have assumed).

There has been no detailed discussion of this point. Bombs thinks that because the ash was in "layers" (as opposed to what?) that this proves 434K (his preferred figure) were executed at the camp.

[bombsaway]

A little summary of the thread so far, reviewing the points in the OP.

1) The story is that around 500,000-600,000 bodies were buried at Belzec. Where were these bodies buried?

It seems it has been conceded that 600,000 is indeed completely unrealistic.

The suggestion seems to be that only 434,000 were killed and that perhaps only 250K were actually buried with the others being burned directly.

The other attempted explanation is to assume the earlier bodies decomposed tremendously which allowed space for fresh corpses.

2) The Witnesses. Kola's grave map is nothing like the descriptions of many of the key witnesses. Star witness Rudolf Reder for example described very large, long graves, all of uniform shape and dimensions.

There seems to be some difference of opinion here with Nessie brushing off the problem as "normal witness errors," as he always does. But bombsaway seems to concede Reder was probably lying/exaggerating due to emotion. Of course if Reder was really there in Nov 1942 and saw the real graves, I would wonder why he would need to falsify his account instead of just describing the terrible reality that he would have actually seen.

3) The human remains in the graves include some unburnt bodies and some cremains. The grave areas are by no means pure ash (contrary to what some of you have assumed).

There has been no detailed discussion of this point. Bombs thinks that because the ash was in "layers" (as opposed to what?) that this proves 434K (his preferred figure) were executed at the camp.

Instead of trying to guess what we're "suggesting" (and I would appreciate it if you separated me from Nessie here, I take a different approach from him) ask us directly.

The Kola study directly evidences body destruction at Belzec. It strongly suggests that mass burial took place (hence the grave space) and then bodies were taken out, destroyed, and ashes deposited back into the graves. The ash layers are evidence of a systematic process of ash dumping, rather than something haphazard. As Kola says, many of the graves are "crematory" graves and homogenous, meaning they only hold ash mixture, in between layers of dirt. The total volume of ash layers, according to Kola's descriptions, is prodigious. In one grave alone we can deduce 1000 cubic meters. If that were pure ash it would be enough to hold 400,000. It's not pure ash though, so we can't extrapolate here.

This is what revisionists, and you specifically, have failed to explain thus far. You haven't given it more than a sentence I think. I think the findings are incompatible with your belief system, and you and others on this forum are proving this with your silence.

As for how many died at Belzec, again that is unknown and we can't accurately extrapolate from Kola's study. The study doesn't prove any specific number, but I think we could say it evidences a large amount, since it would be unreasonable for the Nazis to distribute the ash of a few people across a vast amount of material.

[fireofice]

The ash layers are evidence of a systematic process of ash dumping, rather than something haphazard.

So? Who cares if it was "haphazard" or not? Bro is just saying anything now.

[bombsaway]

The ash layers are evidence of a systematic process of ash dumping, rather than something haphazard.

So? Who cares if it was "haphazard" or not? Bro is just saying anything now.

If it was haphazard, rather than layers, we wouldn't know that eg grave number 5 (which according to Kola is 30 meters by 10 meters) has a continuous layer of ash at the bottom (thus totaling 300 cubic meters). It would be viable for revisionists to argue that there wasn't a lot of ash mixture in the graves (like maybe it was only at the sides?). According to Kola, because he was taking measurements from different parts of the grave, the ash mixture was spread across in a more or less uniform way. When eventually you come up with your explanation for what happened, you have to take this into account.

[Archie]

Instead of trying to guess what we're "suggesting" (and I would appreciate it if you separated me from Nessie here, I take a different approach from him) ask us directly.

It's your job to present your case. It's not my job to try to coax it out of you. Half the time nobody can tell what you are even arguing and you think that's everyone else's fault. The fact is that you don't like presenting your case. You (and Nessie) are mostly reply guys. Kibitzers. I have discussed Nessie's tactics at length elsewhere. Your thing is to float abstract and poorly defined propositions and then demand that others supply you with highly specific examples etc which you invariably declare to be unsatisfactory based on wholly arbitrary criteria.

(Nessie, do take note that bombsaway is fleeing your stench. If you had some self-awareness, you might ask yourself why. You won't of course. You will continue thinking you are Aristotle. In reality, you are what I like to call an "embarrassing ally.")

[bombsaway]

Instead of trying to guess what we're "suggesting" (and I would appreciate it if you separated me from Nessie here, I take a different approach from him) ask us directly.

It's your job to present your case. It's not my job to try to coax it out of you. Half the time nobody can tell what you are even arguing and you think that's everyone else's fault. The fact is that you don't like presenting your case. You (and Nessie) are mostly reply guys. Kibitzers. I have discussed Nessie's tactics at length elsewhere. Your thing is to float abstract and poorly defined propositions and then demand that others supply you with highly specific examples etc which you invariably declare to be unsatisfactory based on wholly arbitrary criteria.

(Nessie, do take note that bombsaway is fleeing your stench. If you had some self-awareness, you might ask yourself why. You won't of course. You will continue thinking you are Aristotle. In reality, you are what I like to call an "embarrassing ally.")

Archie, posts like this are unsubstantive, and probably should be discouraged under forum rules.

You say I'm not presenting a case or what I believe in, but don't list any examples of this (I have in this thread and explicitly did in the post you just quoted, though you omitted that part). "abstract and poorly defined propositions" is another unsubstantiated claim about me.

"invariably declare to be unsatisfactory based on wholly arbitrary criteria. " this is again unsubstantiated.

"Demanding examples"? In this thread I challenged you to provide an explanation for Kola's specific findings. If you think it's unimportant for revisionists to do this, provide a reason why.

Basically your reply here is the equivalent of me calling you as having motivated reasoning /being consistently wrong / avoidant and not backing any of that up. I could if I wanted to, at least on some of these points, like your assertion that the Kola study wasn't available anywhere (it's literally walking distance from me at a library).