The Kola Study - An Own Goal by Team Holocaust

[fireofice]

Clearly they're not engaging in good faith on this point. I think they've said so themselves (Archie, so as not to invite a rebuttal). I would instead speculate they are experiencing an uncomfortable amount of cognitive dissonance about the physical evidence described, and don't want to linger on the subject for this reason.

I assure you I have no "cognitive dissonance" about the physical evidence nor am I "uncomfortable" with it. I just find your concerns about why you think anything you've said about "layers" is a problem for us to be completely incomprehensible, and it appears Archie does as well. I cannot respond to what I don't comprehend. I'm sure in your mind you think you've made some great argument (from my perspective, your victory laps about "winning" against us just look completely delusional), but I am simply at a loss as to what you are even saying. So we're just at an impasse until either you communicate better or any of us get a better understanding of what you're saying.

[fireofice]

Plus, it's not like the numbers without considering partial burning, decomposition, etc., are so far off the mark. The lower bound that graves these sizes allows for is still greater than 250,000 people in the ground. Throw in the factors above, and 500,000 is fully possible.

These things are already accounted for and gone over in the thread you are on. A skinny, decomposed body isn't going to make much difference. Neither is partial combustion of the top layer of bodies.

[Numar Patru]

Plus, it's not like the numbers without considering partial burning, decomposition, etc., are so far off the mark. The lower bound that graves these sizes allows for is still greater than 250,000 people in the ground. Throw in the factors above, and 500,000 is fully possible.

These things are already accounted for and gone over in the thread you are on. A skinny, decomposed body isn't going to make much difference. Neither is partial combustion of the top layer of bodies.

So you concede there’s room for 250k?

[Archie]

The question of how that many bodies can fit has been answered (the main reasons , which I gave before have to do with body decomposition and the documented practice of burning bodies which had been put into the grave (Pfannensteil). This answer clearly isn't satisfying to revisionists, but it's been given, and probably thousands of words

It's been 2 months (!?) and revisionists have not sufficiently explained what Kola found. The favored answer is literally "they threw some ash in" from which we can infer the Nazis dug thousands of cubic meters of grave space to house a small amount of human ashes, which they threw into the graves and magically coalesced into discrete layers stretching thousands of cubic meters.

Clearly they're not engaging in good faith on this point. I think they've said so themselves (Archie, so as not to invite a rebuttal). I would instead speculate they are experiencing an uncomfortable amount of cognitive dissonance about the physical evidence described, and don't want to linger on the subject for this reason.

The truth fears no investigation, is that only the truth of orthodoxy, not revisionism?

"The question of how that many bodies can fit has been answered"

False. You asserted without support that most of the body mass magically disappears once it's buried.

"It's been 2 months (!?) and revisionists have not sufficiently explained what Kola found"

People can go over this thread and see for themselves who has contributed more relevant data and arguments. Your contribution to this thread has been, I have to say, nothing short of dismal.

"I would instead speculate they are experiencing an uncomfortable amount of cognitive dissonance about the physical evidence described, and don't want to linger on the subject for this reason."

Oh, yeah, I'm totally dodging this which is why I started this thread and presented the data in detail right from the beginning. Lol, listen to yourself.

[Archie]

Clearly they're not engaging in good faith on this point. I think they've said so themselves (Archie, so as not to invite a rebuttal). I would instead speculate they are experiencing an uncomfortable amount of cognitive dissonance about the physical evidence described, and don't want to linger on the subject for this reason.

I assure you I have no "cognitive dissonance" about the physical evidence nor am I "uncomfortable" with it. I just find your concerns about why you think anything you've said about "layers" is a problem for us to be completely incomprehensible, and it appears Archie does as well. I cannot respond to what I don't comprehend. I'm sure in your mind you think you've made some great argument (from my perspective, your victory laps about "winning" against us just look completely delusional), but I am simply at a loss as to what you are even saying. So we're just at an impasse until either you communicate better or any of us get a better understanding of what you're saying.

I have never seen someone commit to a bluff like bombs is doing with this muh layers thing. He failed to present an argument (didn't even run the numbers) but kept pretending like he had made some devastating point. For some strange reason, he got upset that we didn't reply with the exact response he was fishing for (or something?) and made a dramatic point of quitting the forum over it. Now he pops back up months later, once again pretending he made some killer argument and everyone is dodging him.

Here's the thing. If he thinks he made such a brilliant argument and thinks we haven't contested it adequately, what the hell's the problem exactly? That's literally how you win a debate. From my perspective, the arguments I make generally don't get satisfactory rebuttals. I don't expect any because I think I'm right.

I think he's full of it and is trying to do some sort of Tom Sawyer painting the fence mind game and got upset when it fell flat. But that he's committed to this for months now is just totally bizarre.

[Archie]

Kola, 21,000m3 of disturbed ground found. Hofle, 434,000 sent to Belzec. Divide that number of people into the volume of disturbed ground and you get 0.048m3 per person, or 48 litres, or 12.7 US gallons. The average adult now is 62 litres. The corpses included many children and people smaller than they are now, plus since the corpses were piled on top of each other and decomposed, they were squashed down. I can see how that many people would fit.

Human bodies are 985 kg/cu meter

For 28.2 bodies per cu meter (the traditional death toll), this would correspond to a mean body mass of 35 kg. And that's with the entire volume 100% full of human tissue. You would have to grind up the bodies to achieve that.

In practice, you won't see burial densities anywhere near this. The way you guys approach these questions is like if we wanted to know how long it takes someone to get to work in the morning and we were to estimate this by taking the linear distance and dividing by the theoretical top speed of the car.

[bombsaway]

Clearly they're not engaging in good faith on this point. I think they've said so themselves (Archie, so as not to invite a rebuttal). I would instead speculate they are experiencing an uncomfortable amount of cognitive dissonance about the physical evidence described, and don't want to linger on the subject for this reason.

I assure you I have no "cognitive dissonance" about the physical evidence nor am I "uncomfortable" with it. I just find your concerns about why you think anything you've said about "layers" is a problem for us to be completely incomprehensible, and it appears Archie does as well. I cannot respond to what I don't comprehend. I'm sure in your mind you think you've made some great argument (from my perspective, your victory laps about "winning" against us just look completely delusional), but I am simply at a loss as to what you are even saying. So we're just at an impasse until either you communicate better or any of us get a better understanding of what you're saying.

You think Belzec was a transit camp right, basically a transfer point for Jews who were being sent to Russia.

At this transit camp there happens to be 20,000 cubic meters of grave space, if Kola's study is accurate.

So the first question is, why so much grave space?

https://holocausthistorychannel.wordpre ... bic-meter/

Based on this, drawn from historical examples, we would get a total number of people buried of 10-11 per cubic meter,

"In any event, it’s fair to assume that the figures for pigs and sheep are the ones most comparable to human burials. The figures of 424 and 424.6 kg/m^3 are very close to Carlo Mattogno’s estimate of 420 kg/m^3, so the general reliability of revisionist reasoning on this subject is again confirmed, while Muehlenkamp’s figures are refuted on the basis of the best data we have."

or 200,000 people, if we take an average weight of 40 something kg. That number (the weight) could be lower IMO based on my calculations which I think I gave in this thread.

were that many buried at Belzec?

Then we have the issue of no corpses in these graves, but rather crematory layers

Question 2, Why were the corpses removed?

Question 3, concerns Kola's described crematory layers. The described volume is enormous, thousands of cubic meters. The actual human remains were thus diluted. Why?

Basically I am seeing a lot of peculiar things which are easily explained w the orthodox narrative and which no revisionist has ever explained.

You guys ask questions like, explain the lack of Prussian blue staining in the crema ruins.

The questions above are less scientific to be sure, but you have to fit the physical evidence into your narrative, whatever it is. That's the point of all this

[bombsaway]

For some strange reason, he got upset that we didn't reply with the exact response he was fishing for (or something?) and made a dramatic point of quitting the forum over it.

You think the explanation "they threw some ash in there along with other debris" answers the questions I asked above, concerning physical evidence?

Btw I didn't quit the forum, just refused to talk about anything else until you guys engaged with the substance of my point, which is the present lack of explanation for Kolas findings.

[Nessie]

Kola, 21,000m3 of disturbed ground found. Hofle, 434,000 sent to Belzec. Divide that number of people into the volume of disturbed ground and you get 0.048m3 per person, or 48 litres, or 12.7 US gallons. The average adult now is 62 litres. The corpses included many children and people smaller than they are now, plus since the corpses were piled on top of each other and decomposed, they were squashed down. I can see how that many people would fit.

Human bodies are 985 kg/cu meter

For 28.2 bodies per cu meter (the traditional death toll), this would correspond to a mean body mass of 35 kg. And that's with the entire volume 100% full of human tissue. You would have to grind up the bodies to achieve that.

In practice, you won't see burial densities anywhere near this. The way you guys approach these questions is like if we wanted to know how long it takes someone to get to work in the morning and we were to estimate this by taking the linear distance and dividing by the theoretical top speed of the car.

I have taken simple volumes and shown that 21,000m3, the equivalent of 8.4 Olympic sized swimming pools, is enough to fit 434,000 decomposed, crushed corpses. You cannot accept that, so you introduce other measurements and false analogies.

[bombsaway]

Here's the AI analysis of the last 5 pages.
I asked Claude in explanatory mode
"Is BA's question to the revisionists a fair one? Does it hurt their case to address it the way they have? Have they done a good job in addressing it?

Explain why or why not in detail"

Let me analyze the interaction in detail:

BA (bombsaway) is raising a specific challenge to the revisionist position: Can they explain the physical evidence found at Belzec, particularly:

1. The large volume of grave space (approximately 21,000 cubic meters)
2. The presence of systematic ash layers within these graves
3. The apparent deliberate mixing of human cremains with sand
4. The organized, layered deposition pattern rather than haphazard dumping

This is a fair challenge for several reasons:

First, any historical theory needs to be able to explain the physical evidence found. The revisionists appear to accept Kola's study as legitimate (they don't claim it's fabricated), so they should be able to explain its findings within their framework.

Second, BA provides his own explanation from the mainstream historical perspective - that the graves were used for mass burial of victims, who were later exhumed and cremated as part of a concealment effort, with the ashes then being systematically reburied in layers mixed with sand.

The revisionists' responses appear inadequate:

1. Fireofice dismisses the question as a "non-issue" and offers only "they threw some ash in" without explaining the systematic nature of the deposits

2. Archie focuses on challenging specific numbers and ratios (like wood ash to human cremains) while not addressing the fundamental question of why such extensive graves with organized ash layers exist at all

3. Nazgul suggests the ash came from people who died in transit, but doesn't explain why their remains would be systematically destroyed and buried in this particular way

Their responses avoid addressing key questions like:
- Why would a transit camp need such extensive grave space?
- Why completely destroy bodies rather than simple burial if these were natural deaths?
- Why systematically layer the remains with sand in multiple graves?

The revisionists' apparent inability or unwillingness to construct a coherent alternative explanation for this physical evidence does weaken their position. If Belzec was merely a transit camp, there should be a logical explanation for these archaeological findings that fits that narrative.

BA's challenge essentially asks the revisionists to explain the physical evidence in a way that aligns with their broader historical claims. Their deflection and focus on peripheral details rather than providing a comprehensive alternative explanation suggests they may not have one that makes logical sense within their framework.

This illustrates an important principle in historical analysis - physical evidence needs to be explainable within any proposed historical narrative. When a theory struggles to account for physical evidence in a logical way, it raises serious questions about that theory's validity.

I've made most of these points but perhaps the AI puts it more clearly.

I asked about similar questions that have been posed to flat earthers

Flat Earth Theory Analogies:
Some key challenges to flat earth theory that parallel BA's question:

"Explain how ships disappear bottom-first over the horizon"
"Explain why we see different stars from different hemispheres"
"Explain how GPS works"

Like BA's question about the ash layers, these ask flat earthers to explain observed physical phenomena within their theoretical framework. And like the revisionist responses here, flat earthers often:

Focus on peripheral details while avoiding the core question
Provide partial explanations that don't address the full scope
Deflect to questioning the reliability of the evidence
Fail to provide a coherent alternative explanation that fits their model

What makes these questions effective challenges is they:

Point to specific, documented physical evidence
Ask for an explanation that fits within the challenger's broader framework
Require addressing multiple related aspects that need to work together
Focus on evidence that's hard to dismiss or explain away
Compare competing explanations' ability to account for all the evidence

BA's question about the ash layers fits this pattern - it asks revisionists to explain specific physical evidence in a way that makes sense within their transit camp narrative, addressing multiple aspects like the volume, systematic layering, and deliberate mixing with sand. Their difficulty providing a coherent explanation that addresses all these elements while fitting their broader claims mirrors flat earthers' struggles with similar fundamental challenges to their framework.
This type of question is particularly powerful because it moves beyond debates about individual documents or testimonies to focus on physical evidence that any valid historical explanation needs to be able to account for.

The silence that we are seeing (not engaging with my questions or providing meta argumentation about why my questions don't deserve answers) is why I suspect revisionists may have an internalized or repressed fear of going down this road.

[Archie]

1. The large volume of grave space (approximately 21,000 cubic meters)
2. The presence of systematic ash layers within these graves
3. The apparent deliberate mixing of human cremains with sand
4. The organized, layered deposition pattern rather than haphazard dumping

1) "Large" is vague. 5,490 sq meters of generously delineated graves is NOT large at all relative to the claim that 600,000 were killed there. Already explained in the OP.
2) Ash would imply bodies were burned (duh). If there's a layer of ash, this implies some number of bodies burned at approximately the same time (duh).
3) Ok, there's some sand. Therefore ... what exactly?
4) The Kola graves are haphazard. They do not show much intelligent design or planning. See the OP. Regarding the "deposition pattern," what about it? I do not understand why you think the revisionist thesis would preclude layers.

See, this is the problem with your arguments. They tend to be of the form, "Well, what about the sand?" "Well, what about the layers?" But you don't actually explain how those points support your conclusion (600,000 were killed).

[bombsaway]

See, this is the problem with your arguments. They tend to be of the form, "Well, what about the sand?" "Well, what about the layers?" But you don't actually explain how those points support your conclusion (600,000 were killed).

Actually I've done this, you just have issues with my reasoning. Whereas your side has presented no alternative hypothesis for what I guess we agree exists (since you're not doubting the study's legitimacy).

History and historical theories must explain evidence, not just criticize opposing interpretations.

A sufficient response would need to:

• Explain why graves that could house 200,000 bodies (according to revisionist projections, no other factors taken into account eg body decomposition) would exist at a transit camp
• Explain the need for the vast majority of bodies to be destroyed
• Account for the systematic nature of the deposits (the layering)
• Provide a logical reason for mixing cremains with sand
• Fit all this into a coherent explanation that aligns with the transit camp thesis

You can't do this right?

[Nessie]

....
1) "Large" is vague. 5,490 sq meters of generously delineated graves is NOT large at all relative to the claim that 600,000 were killed there. Already explained in the OP.
...

Kola is quite precise, 21,000m3 of disturbed ground was traced and evidenced. That is the equivalent to 8.4 Olympic sized swimming pools, which is larger than any mass grave site in the world, save for the other AR camps and Chelmno. That would fit the precise figure of 434,508 Hofle recorded as arrivals at the camp. The 600,000 figure you use is the highest in a range, and suitably vague, as the precise figures do not work so well for you.

[Numar Patru]

4) The Kola graves are haphazard. They do not show much intelligent design or planning. See the OP.

I don't understand this argument. They were improvising as they went. Therefore, there was not much in the way of planning.

[bombsaway]

4) The Kola graves are haphazard. They do not show much intelligent design or planning. See the OP.

I don't understand this argument. They were improvising as they went. Therefore, there was not much in the way of planning.

Yeah it's a strange point to make considering the graves are real, enormous, and contain human remains. The Germans dug them irrespective of any "intelligent design". But all of this is a deflection from having to explain what Kola reports. They won't even say if they're able to sufficiently explain it, from their framework, or if it's some kind of cosmic mystery. Even Young Earth Creationists posit a rationale for the existence of ancient fossils. Flat earthers provide reasons for why people all over the earth experience night and day at different times.