The Kola Study - An Own Goal by Team Holocaust

[Archie]

Why should I answer this question when you can't answer a far more basic question: why are there ash layers, diluted as they may be?

They threw in some ash mixed with other debris, and then threw in some dirt on top of that, then repeat. I don't get why you've made a big deal of this non-issue.

Bombs is clearly BSing us. He can't address any of the points we have raised in this thread so he's implying he has some killer argument that he refuses to explain. He's deliberately leaving it nebulous in hopes that people who don't know what's going on will be taken in by his phony confidence.

[bombsaway]

Why should I answer this question when you can't answer a far more basic question: why are there ash layers, diluted as they may be?

They threw in some ash mixed with other debris, and then threw in some dirt on top of that, then repeat. I don't get why you've made a big deal of this non-issue.

Bombs is clearly BSing us. He can't address any of the points we have raised in this thread so he's implying he has some killer argument that he refuses to explain. He's deliberately leaving it nebulous in hopes that people who don't know what's going on will be taken in by his phony confidence.

The argument is that you offered no explanation for a piece of evidence (Kola's study), yet you're constantly asking me to explain this evidence and how it fits the orthodox narrative. Saying they threw some ash in doesn't explain graves with a thousand cubic meters of ash mixture, nor the grave space. Were bodies buried there and removed and destroyed? How many people plausibly died there?

Here I offered an explanation that covers Kola's specific findings about the ash layers and grave space... It took me about 5 minutes. If you do the same and it's reasonable I'll concede this point. It wouldn't invalidate the historicity of the Holocaust, I just don't think you can do it, or else some revisionist would have done it already. Mattogno didn't do it in his Belzec book.

So specifically, using #5 as reference

"Located in the south-western part of the camp. The grave had the shape of an irregular lengthened rectangle with the dimensions of 32 meters by 10 meters, reaching a depth of over 4.5 meters. It was of a homogenous content. Studies of its crematory layers structure suggested multiple filling of the grave with burnt relics. The layer with the biggest thickness and intensity of crematory contents appeared in the lowest part of the pit and was about 1 meter thick; above 50 cm thick layer of soil, 4 following layers of crematory remains appeared, separated from each other with 20-30 cm layers of sand. The volume of the pit was about 1350 meters"

My explanation (the kind I would like to see from you) would be this:

I would say graves were dug this large because they had to accommodate a large volume of bodies. Thousands were being killed every day that had to be buried. Ash of these individuals occupies far less volume. The bodies were brought out of the graves, then cremated in bunches of bodies at a time. Each time a group of bodies was destroyed the ashes were put back in the grave, this is where the layers come from. The bodies were destroyed for the purposes of concealing the extent of the killing operation.

We can see at the bottom a layer one meter thick. If the area of the pit was roughly 300 meters, that would constitute 300 cubic meters of ash mixture. Given an average yield of 3 liters of cremated remains per person, this would constitute 100,000 people if it was 100% ash. It wasn't pure ash though, it was mixed withs sand. At 1% purity it would contain the ashes of 1000 people. As far as I can tell in my research the alleged extermination camps are the only mass graves ever reported where ash was mixed with sand. The question of why here and not anywhere else is a pertinent one. I would speculate that it was done again to conceal or confuse the extent of the killing operation.

[bombsaway]

The best response was, 'they threw some ash in with other debris'.

Yeah and that was a perfectly fine response. There's literally nothing to explain. It's like if I said "if the holocaust happened, explain why birds exist" and then doing a victory dance when you don't answer and say there is nothing to be explained.

So here are some questions,

Why the large, discrete layers? If you were just throwing ash in haphazardly this wouldn't happen unless by some cosmic coincidence.

Why did they destroy the bodies in their totality? If it was just for hygiene you would typically burn the bodies and dump them in, leaving the skeletons intact.

Why did they dilute the ashes with sand?

And why so much with each filling? 300 cubic meters according to Kola, in the first ash layer in grave number 5.

If that was 50% human remains that would be around 75,000 people.

In total Kola describe thousands of cubic meters of ash in the graves.

Nevertheless the total grave volume is much larger than the ash volume, so this is another unanswered question.

All of these questions are answered by me, above, in my simple narrative which took me about 3 minutes to write. I'm asking you to do the same. I could have answered, they threw the ashes in there as well, but there's a lot more to it than that.

[bombsaway]

This particular case is a good test of Occam's Razor principle. I think there is a possible narrative revisionist could construct that answers the above points as I have done, but my expectaion is that it will much longer than my own, and also more convoluted and nonsensical.

The main argument for not providing one seems to be something to do with my duplicitous nature, that I'm setting a trap or something, but in that case I don't think anyone here who believes that should be engaging with me. This is a cop out anyway, since an answer here is not just an answer for me, but for all revisionists interested in Kola's results.

My thinking is revisionists are aware of the convoluted nature of the narrative they must construct to explain Kola's findings. They know it's a bad look, so they don't want to respond. They're in a real bind here, because inexplicably they have largely vouched for the legitimacy of his study. I don't say inexplicably because I think they're wrong to do so, but because it's revisionist practice to simply cry foul when presented with evidence that clearly doesn't go their way.

[Archie]

Bombs, why don't you just make your best points and let them stand on their own merits?

From my perspective you haven't responded adequately to any of our points in this thread. But I'm not going to announce this repeatedly because it goes without saying. This is to be assumed when people don't agree. You need to learn to tolerate disagreement better.

If there was a particularly important point that you feel escaped people's attention (that got lost in the shuffle), then it's reasonable to bring it back up a time or two. But now that you have repeated your layers thing like ten times across multiple threads, I think we can safely assume everyone has heard it by now.

[Archie]

The main argument for not providing one seems to be something to do with my duplicitous nature, that I'm setting a trap or something, but in that case I don't think anyone here who believes that should be engaging with me.

No, the response you got from several of us was that your point was poorly articulated and overly vague. You were trying to make a point about ash volume, but you didn't even give us your numbers and you failed to address the wood ash.

Mattogno's estimates:

1,350 metric tons of cremains
7,680 metric tons of wood ash
9,030 metric tons total ash

This volume of this would 25,300 cubic meters, a bit larger than Kola's graves. And when you consider that Kola's graves were by no means filled to brim with pure ash, these numbers would suggest that we are dealing with something far, far less than 600,000 bodies (although obviously it's very hard to estimate a body count from ash, nor do I think Kola's published data has sufficient detail to estimate the exact volume of pure cremains). Furthermore, as I noted before, only dealing with the ash is cheating because the much harder part is explaining what happened to the other 95% of the body mass. That is to say the burial and cremation of 600,000 whole bodies.

Anyway, the source of disagreement between the two sides is not that the ash was in "layers," or whatever you're saying. It's that your side thinks they used barely any wood.

[bombsaway]

The main argument for not providing one seems to be something to do with my duplicitous nature, that I'm setting a trap or something, but in that case I don't think anyone here who believes that should be engaging with me.

No, the response you got from several of us was that your point was poorly articulated and overly vague. You were trying to make a point about ash volume, but you didn't even give us your numbers and you failed to address the wood ash.

Mattogno's estimates:

1,350 metric tons of cremains
7,680 metric tons of wood ash
9,030 metric tons total ash

This volume of this would 25,300 cubic meters, a bit larger than Kola's graves. And when you consider that Kola's graves were by no means filled to brim with pure ash, these numbers would suggest that we are dealing with something far, far less than 600,000 bodies (although obviously it's very hard to estimate a body count from ash, nor do I think Kola's published data has sufficient detail to estimate the exact volume of pure cremains). Furthermore, as I noted before, only dealing with the ash is cheating because the much harder part is explaining what happened to the other 95% of the body mass. That is to say the burial and cremation of 600,000 whole bodies.

Anyway, the source of disagreement between the two sides is not that the ash was in "layers," or whatever you're saying. It's that your side thinks they used barely any wood.

The point is you can't construct a narrative that encompasses the evidence and this is one of the most basic parts of doing history.

If I address the issue of the wood ash will you then talk to me about the above point? It's very unfair, and again I think everyone should take note of this, that you are resistant to let me drive the conversation into this area, whereas you can divert it in any direction you please. This is not what someone typically does if they believe they have a strong argument. I'm frankly not sure if you're a coward or delusional (and actually think you have properly addressed and answered all my above questions https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=1826#p1826)

[Archie]

The main argument for not providing one seems to be something to do with my duplicitous nature, that I'm setting a trap or something, but in that case I don't think anyone here who believes that should be engaging with me.

No, the response you got from several of us was that your point was poorly articulated and overly vague. You were trying to make a point about ash volume, but you didn't even give us your numbers and you failed to address the wood ash.

Mattogno's estimates:

1,350 metric tons of cremains
7,680 metric tons of wood ash
9,030 metric tons total ash

This volume of this would 25,300 cubic meters, a bit larger than Kola's graves. And when you consider that Kola's graves were by no means filled to brim with pure ash, these numbers would suggest that we are dealing with something far, far less than 600,000 bodies (although obviously it's very hard to estimate a body count from ash, nor do I think Kola's published data has sufficient detail to estimate the exact volume of pure cremains). Furthermore, as I noted before, only dealing with the ash is cheating because the much harder part is explaining what happened to the other 95% of the body mass. That is to say the burial and cremation of 600,000 whole bodies.

Anyway, the source of disagreement between the two sides is not that the ash was in "layers," or whatever you're saying. It's that your side thinks they used barely any wood.

The point is you can't construct a narrative that encompasses the evidence and this is one of the most basic parts of doing history.

If I address the issue of the wood ash will you then talk to me about the above point? It's very unfair, and again I think everyone should take note of this, that you are resistant to let me drive the conversation into this area, whereas you can divert it in any direction you please. This is not what someone typically does if they believe they have a strong argument. I'm frankly not sure if you're a coward or delusional (and actually think you have properly addressed and answered all my above questions https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=1826#p1826)

You can post whatever you want. Nobody's stopping you. But people are not compelled to respond to you.

I am not demanding that you address wood ash. What I'm telling you is that if this is a serious attempt to make a case about ash volume then you will need to address the wood ash. If you don't, then you've failed from the get-go.

[bombsaway]

You can post whatever you want. Nobody's stopping you. But people are not compelled to respond to you.

I am not demanding that you address wood ash. What I'm telling you is that if this is a serious attempt to make a case about ash volume then you will need to address the wood ash. If you don't, then you've failed from the get-go.

I understand that. You ask me things, I ask you things, and neither of us are compelled to answer. In this case, you've asked me many many things, I've dutifully responded. I have one central point that I want to make, and nobody has responded in a serious way (given it more than a few stray sentences).

My participation in this forum will hereby be limited only to that topic. One it is addressed in a substantial way (like I would say a few hundred words and back and forth a few times) we can get back to normal business. Take this as a victory if you wish, but I think it's a hollow one. You're essentially censoring ideas by not engaging, that's to your detriment tbh.

[Nessie]

....
The point is you can't construct a narrative that encompasses the evidence and this is one of the most basic parts of doing history.

....

Nothing Kola found fits with the various claims that Belzec was a transit camp, property sorting centre, customs post or that it did not otherwise receive mass transports. It is the same for TII, Sobibor, Chelmno and the A-B Kremas, revisionists cannot, as you say, construct an evidenced chronological narrative to a proven conclusion.

[bombsaway]

....
The point is you can't construct a narrative that encompasses the evidence and this is one of the most basic parts of doing history.

....

Nothing Kola found fits with the various claims that Belzec was a transit camp, property sorting centre, customs post or that it did not otherwise receive mass transports. It is the same for TII, Sobibor, Chelmno and the A-B Kremas, revisionists cannot, as you say, construct an evidenced chronological narrative to a proven conclusion.

It's even worse than this because they haven't even made any claims which would explain Kola's findings.

Either say the evidence is illegitimate or explain how it fits into ones world view, there's no other option.

[Archie]

Summary of points that have not been addressed to MY satisfaction.

-Justification for 79-109 bodies/sq m (or 20-28 bodies/cu m) [Honestly, we could almost just stop right here. The story has already fallen apart, imo.] [Also, if Kola's extrapolated grave boundaries are too generous, the numbers would be even worse.]
-Justification for the claim that there was up to 70% reduction in volume due to decomposition (based solely on blatant AI slop)
-An explanation for why star witnesses Gerstein and Reder were unable describe the graves even remotely accurately
-An explanation for why the "Kola graves" have totally irregular shapes and borders
-An explanation for how they dug up all these bodies when the ground was frozen and how they burned all of them
-An explanation for where all the ash including wood ash went
-An explanation for why it is impossible to buy Kola's book
-An explanation for why they covered the entire site over with grotesque concrete rendering further investigation impossible

[Hektor]

Summary of points that have not been addressed to MY satisfaction.

-Justification for 79-109 bodies/sq m (or 20-28 bodies/cu m) [Honestly, we could almost just stop right here. The story has already fallen apart, imo.] [Also, if Kola's extrapolated grave boundaries are too generous, the numbers would be even worse.]
-Justification for the claim that there was up to 70% reduction in volume due to decomposition (based solely on blatant AI slop)
-An explanation for why star witnesses Gerstein and Reder were unable describe the graves even remotely accurately
-An explanation for why the "Kola graves" have totally irregular shapes and borders
-An explanation for how they dug up all these bodies when the ground was frozen and how they burned all of them
-An explanation for where all the ash including wood ash went
-An explanation for why it is impossible to buy Kola's book
-An explanation for why they covered the entire site over with grotesque concrete rendering further investigation impossible

They also need to justify how they excluded that what they found positive evidence could not be explained by other causes than those that they are suggesting.

[Nessie]

Summary of points that have not been addressed to MY satisfaction.

-Justification for 79-109 bodies/sq m (or 20-28 bodies/cu m) [Honestly, we could almost just stop right here. The story has already fallen apart, imo.] [Also, if Kola's extrapolated grave boundaries are too generous, the numbers would be even worse.]

We do not know exactly how many corpses there were, or the size of the graves, or what happens when naked corpses are buried on top of each other over a period of months, so that the lower corpses are subjected to increased pressure as they decompose. It is likely that waxy fat residue, as found by Kola, accounts for a very high corpse density.

-Justification for the claim that there was up to 70% reduction in volume due to decomposition (based solely on blatant AI slop)

It is all best guess and speculation.

-An explanation for why star witnesses Gerstein and Reder were unable describe the graves even remotely accurately

People's memories are proven to be poorer than you clearly think they should be. They describe mass graves in a camp and an area in that camp, that has been found to contain large areas of disturbed ground containing cremated, decomposed remains. The evidence is corroborated.

-An explanation for why the "Kola graves" have totally irregular shapes and borders

Bore hole sampling will not show clear straight edges. The excavations to exhume the corpses likely disturbed the grave's edges.

-An explanation for how they dug up all these bodies when the ground was frozen and how they burned all of them

I am not sure why you think excavations are impossible in frozen ground or that the ground was frozen the entire time. Frozen ground and problems with excavating such, may also explain the irregular shapes and borders.

Placing corpses on a metal grate, over a wood fire, no matter what you think, will work as a pyre. See the pyres at Ohrdruf and Dresden, or think of a scaled up fire pit or even a BBQ.

-An explanation for where all the ash including wood ash went

It was also buried, as Kola found ash in his bore samples.

-An explanation for why it is impossible to buy Kola's book

Listed as for sale here;

https://allegro.pl/oferta/hitlerowski-o ... abpid=7084

List of libraries where it can be borrowed here;

https://search.worldcat.org/title/47083143

-An explanation for why they covered the entire site over with grotesque concrete rendering further investigation impossible

To stop grave robbing and people walking over the remains.

[bombsaway]

Summary of points that have not been addressed to MY satisfaction.

-Justification for 79-109 bodies/sq m (or 20-28 bodies/cu m) [Honestly, we could almost just stop right here. The story has already fallen apart, imo.] [Also, if Kola's extrapolated grave boundaries are too generous, the numbers would be even worse.]
-Justification for the claim that there was up to 70% reduction in volume due to decomposition (based solely on blatant AI slop)
-An explanation for why star witnesses Gerstein and Reder were unable describe the graves even remotely accurately
-An explanation for why the "Kola graves" have totally irregular shapes and borders
-An explanation for how they dug up all these bodies when the ground was frozen and how they burned all of them
-An explanation for where all the ash including wood ash went
-An explanation for why it is impossible to buy Kola's book
-An explanation for why they covered the entire site over with grotesque concrete rendering further investigation impossible

The key difference being that "Team Holocaust" has devoted thousands of words in this thread to answering to questions like this (probably dozens of posts on the first topic), whereas when asked to how their narrative fits with Kola's findings revisionists have provided not more than a sentence or two, essentially "it just ended up that way" -- as if the existence of enormous graves full of discrete and continuous ash layers is something totally common place and self explanatory.

This is the bigger issue that is exemplified by my question, revisionists' inability to face up to / defend / build their own narratives. It's clear only one side has this issue; there isn't a single topic that "Team Holocaust" is going to be similarly unwilling to engage in.