Archie wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2025 4:57 pm
Regarding decomposition effects, you are unsurprisingly assuming these would be huge but have presented no real support for this (only cherry-picked references). It is certainly true there will be some settling of the ground. This is why graves can often be seen from aerial photos. But what exactly are you envisioning here? Say we have a 3-4 meter deep grave. How much are asserting this would have sunk in a few months?
To add to this,
-In accounts of mass graves, I do not recall many descriptions of graves turning into huge craters after a few months. Does this actually happen? My impression is, no. No, it doesn't. I could see there being some settling over time. But for Belzec we would only be talking a few months for most of these graves.
-I knew some people once who had a sink hole open up in their yard. Apparently, the builder had buried construction debris there to save costs (this is usually illegal) and it eventually started to sink. But it happened very slowly. It was not noticed for decades. Organic material would presumably decay faster, but the point is these things don't happen immediately.
The idea is not that graves turn into craters, but graves full of bodies compress as bodies bloat, burst, leak fluid, flatten, all these things described in the page I linked to. We don't have numbers, but I would imagine that you would get close to perfect density near the bottom of the graves at least (where bodies have been the longest and also where all fluids are draining), and then going up. With multiple refillings as more room cleared.
So in a 5 meter grave, the first meter might have a density of 95% body, the second meter could be 90%, the third meter 85, 4th 75%, and the last layer could be .7 meters at 65% density with a foot of dirt on top.
Total grave = 5m³ column
Bodies volume in each layer:
Bottom 1m: 0.95m³ of bodies
Next 1m: 0.90m³ of bodies
Next 1m: 0.85m³ of bodies
Next 1m: 0.75m³ of bodies
Last 0.7m: 0.65 × 0.7 = 0.455m³ of bodies
Top 0.3m: 0m³ (dirt)
Total volume of bodies = 3.905m³ of the 5m³ column
Since each 1m³ of pure body mass holds about 25.5 bodies (at 40kg each), we can calculate total bodies:
3.905m³ × 25.5 = 99.6 bodies in the 5m³ column
Therefore: 99.6 bodies ÷ 5m³ = 19.9 bodies per cubic meter of grave space
This shows we can achieve around 20 bodies per cubic meter even with:
A dirt layer on top
Decreasing density as we go up
Only 65% body density near the top
5% to 35% air/space between bodies depending on depth
So this gets you to 20 bodies per cubic meter which is around the target density, without accounting for any total volume loss due to evaporation and leakage into soil. Bodies burning in the grave as per Pfannenstiel's testimony would reduce volume further (through evaporation).
Archie wrote: ↑Wed Jan 29, 2025 4:44 am
Over and over in Holocaust debates we see disputes over calculations. Cremation, fuel, grave space, things related to gassing, and so on. I want to highlight a general point that is often lost in these arguments. This is intended to be a sort of meta-discussion. Some decades ago, Arthur Butz, a PhD electrical engineer, educated at MIT and Minnesota, offered the following very sensible comments regarding theoretical vs realistic calculations (from Supplement 3 of Hoax).
In considering cremation capacity, it is difficult to reach conclusions on a purely technical basis because of the distinction that must unavoidably be made between what is physically possible and what is practically attainable. For example, although I am told that my car can move at about 100 miles per hour, I know I cannot drive the 20 miles that separates my home in Evanston from the University of Chicago in twelve minutes; too many obstacles intervene. The technical data provides two numbers from which only an irrelevant conclusion can be drawn, whose only value is that the arithmetic is correct.
Butz is of course completely right about this. And subsequently we have seen the arguments go off in precisely the misguided direction he warned against.
Muehlenkamp Math
The person who has really taken this to an artform is no doubt Roberto Muehlenkamp. In his calculations for wood requirements or mass grave capacity, Muehlenkamp does not even do the sort of super naive calculation Butz refers to. He goes beyond this, introducing great complexity in order to go even more extreme than what you can get with naive arithmetic.
Stacking Extreme Assumptions
If you are trying to estimate how much wood is required to cremate a human body, how do you come up with a silly value like 15 kg? The answer is that you break the problem down into a series of assumptions and for every individual assumption you pick the most extreme value you can think of in whichever direction is convenient for your argument. There is a compounding/multiplicative effect here and just by changing around assumptions you can get final answers that vary by orders of magnitude. If you assume a tiny body size AND big decomposition AND low fuel to mass ratio AND favorable weather AND ... you can end up with a much lower number. But you have to be right about ALL of those jumps.
The better way to do it is to consider the range of plausible assumptions and see how robust your conclusion is to changes in these assumptions. And, as Butz pointed out, you really need to sanity check your results with actual real world experience.
Possibility and Impossibility are Contextual
We must be precise here. Generally speaking, when we talk about what is possible or not possible, there is some implied framework, e.g., a particular technology, a particular context. Within a certain framework, X may not be feasible. If you change the framework, maybe it would be.
For instance, suppose you want to travel from NYC to LA by car. Google maps says this will take around 41 hours. This is an estimate based on realistic assumptions for traffic, average speed, etc., but it also assumes continuous driving (not realistic). Most people stop for food, sleep, gas, and these practical considerations would stretch the trip out to multiple days in most cases.
Now, we could ask, is it *possible* to drive from NYC to LA in, say, 40 hours? Sure. Is that practically possible on a family trip? No. That framework has a lot of practical constraints. Could we do it a lot faster if we dedicated ourselves to the task? Sure. People actually do this. It's called the Cannonball Run and the current record is 25 hrs and 39 mins.
The record time works out to an average speed of 112 mph. To achieve such high speeds, they make all sorts of special preparations. They use a fast car obviously (preferably one that doesn't look flashy). They go when traffic will be light.
They have extra fuel tanks. They use various tricks to avoid getting pulled over by the cops.
But let's say you had a big budget to work with and had government cooperation. That changes the framework and changes what is possible. If instead of a car, we assume an SR-71, then you could say it takes something like an hour. Different framework!
What Actually Happened?
So often in these debates, it feels like revisionists are arguing that the stories are wildly implausible if not outright physically impossible while the other side seems to be arguing merely for possibility. And they seem to equate mere possibility with showing that it actually happened.
It feels like this post is a kind of a subtweet at the one I made above, so I'll just respond here to keep things on topic.
With the assumptions I made above I explicitly did not include completely valid inferences like volume loss due to evaporation (both natural and the evidenced corpse burning that took place in graves). I did not use the lower bound weight either (of 30 kg) which I think is possible.
The criticisms of Muehlenkamp I would say apply equally to Mattogno. He goes high (with motivated reasoning) and you buy it because you have motivated reasoning as well. Muehlenkamp (and perhaps myself, though I'm more conservative than him) goes low for the same reason. It's a case of
So often in these debates, it feels like revisionists are arguing that the stories are wildly implausible if not outright physically impossible while the other side seems to be arguing merely for possibility. And they seem to equate mere possibility with showing that it actually happened.
This is important because it's ridiculous to assert that because something "could" have happened that is evidence it did. Rather what we are doing is attacking the belief of "wild implausibility". That's all. The evidence that it did happen is strong, it's in the witness testimony, the documents and recordings, the physical evidence. The fact that revisionists have offered no evidence about their claims, and not only this but no counter hypothesis, bolsters the strength of the existing hypothesis.
If you're ready to move on to this counter hypothesis we can do so.
To recap you asserted a few thousand or tens of thousands may have died at the camp, though you don't speculate why due to lack of evidence, but I suppose you could say it may have been from bodies pulled from the trains.
Next you assume the corpses were exhumed. I asked you why, and you provided no rationale here, only that it had been done before. The examples you showed were at the site of an alleged death camp (Auschwitz) and an exhumation that took place in the last days of the war (which was so hastily conducted the job wasn't even finished - a cover up effort is thus likely reason here). So why were the corpses at Belzec exhumed? There has to be a reason if it was done, so thoroughly, because the graves are mostly empty. Feel to free to speculate here.
bombsaway wrote: ↑Wed Jan 29, 2025 5:15 pm
It feels like this post is a kind of a subtweet at the one I made above, so I'll just respond here to keep things on topic.
With the assumptions I made above I explicitly did not include completely valid inferences like volume loss due to evaporation (both natural and the evidenced corpse burning that took place in graves). I did not use the lower bound weight either (of 30 kg) which I think is possible.
That thread I made was not a reply to that specific post. It was inspired more generally by your and Nessie's performance in this and other threads.
The criticisms of Muehlenkamp I would say apply equally to Mattogno. He goes high (with motivated reasoning) and you buy it because you have motivated reasoning as well. Muehlenkamp (and perhaps myself, though I'm more conservative than him) goes low for the same reason. It's a case of
Sure, buddy.
20+ bodies/cubic meter of potential grave space is in no way a cautious estimate. Nor his claim that you cremate a body with only 15 kg of wood. He was trying to get it to work out and he manipulated the assumptions to try to get a result he wanted. There is no way anyone looking at this objectively would ever come up with numbers like that.
For revisionists, we aren't obligated to insist on a set of extremely specific assumptions. We can afford to be rather generous with the assumptions.
This is important because it's ridiculous to assert that because something "could" have happened that is evidence it did. Rather what we are doing is attacking the belief of "wild implausibility". That's all. The evidence that it did happen is strong, it's in the witness testimony, the documents and recordings, the physical evidence. The fact that revisionists have offered no evidence about their claims, and not only this but no counter hypothesis, bolsters the strength of the existing hypothesis.
People telling stories isn't adequate proof for fantastic world record claims.
Next you assume the corpses were exhumed. I asked you why, and you provided no rationale here, only that it had been done before. The examples you showed were at the site of an alleged death camp (Auschwitz) and an exhumation that took place in the last days of the war (which was so hastily conducted the job wasn't even finished - a cover up effort is thus likely reason here). So why were the corpses at Belzec exhumed? There has to be a reason if it was done, so thoroughly, because the graves are mostly empty. Feel to free to speculate here.
Ohrdruf wasn't an extermination camp. So if it was a "cover-up," it would be a cover-up of a small number of dead bodies who weren't gassed.
20+ bodies/cubic meter of potential grave space is in no way a cautious estimate. Nor his claim that you cremate a body with only 15 kg of wood. He was trying to get it to work out and he manipulated the assumptions to try to get a result he wanted. There is no way anyone looking at this objectively would ever come up with numbers like that.
For revisionists, we aren't obligated to insist on a set of extremely specific assumptions. We can afford to be rather generous with the assumptions.
You use manipulations and assumptions to base your illogical arguments from incredulity on. Just because you cannot believe hundreds of thousands of corpses are buried at Belzec, even though the simplest of calculations is that they could, does not therefore mean there are no mass graves there.
This is important because it's ridiculous to assert that because something "could" have happened that is evidence it did. Rather what we are doing is attacking the belief of "wild implausibility". That's all. The evidence that it did happen is strong, it's in the witness testimony, the documents and recordings, the physical evidence. The fact that revisionists have offered no evidence about their claims, and not only this but no counter hypothesis, bolsters the strength of the existing hypothesis.
People telling stories isn't adequate proof for fantastic world record claims.
As well as being reliant on the argument from incredulity, you have to misrepresent the evidence, as it is not in your favour. You dismiss corroborated witness evidence, where the witnesses would not normally cooperate and there is physical, archaeological and circumstantial evidence for the existences of mass graves as "people telling stories". You need to play down the volume of evidence for mass graves, to deflect from your total lack of any evidence that few people died at the camp and there are no mass graves there.
Next you assume the corpses were exhumed. I asked you why, and you provided no rationale here, only that it had been done before. The examples you showed were at the site of an alleged death camp (Auschwitz) and an exhumation that took place in the last days of the war (which was so hastily conducted the job wasn't even finished - a cover up effort is thus likely reason here). So why were the corpses at Belzec exhumed? There has to be a reason if it was done, so thoroughly, because the graves are mostly empty. Feel to free to speculate here.
Ohrdruf wasn't an extermination camp. So if it was a "cover-up," it would be a cover-up of a small number of dead bodies who weren't gassed.
Your lack of evidence forces you to speculate. You then believe your unevidenced speculations, over what is evidenced by multiple corroborating sources, to have happened. You are so determined to believe that there are no mass graves at Belzec, that you will accept your conclusions, even though you need to use a logical fallacy and speculate with no supporting evidence, over what is evidenced.
Nessie wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2025 9:32 am
You use manipulations and assumptions to base your illogical arguments from incredulity on. Just because you cannot believe hundreds of thousands of corpses are buried at Belzec, even though the simplest of calculations is that they could, does not therefore mean there are no mass graves there.
Your "simplest of calculations" = divide total volume by an assumed volume for a human body
Suggesting that as a realistic burial density is sheer idiocy. It is the EXACTLY the sort of calculation I criticized in the other thread (like assuming you can commute downtown in 12 minutes). It would only be useful in obtaining a fanciful upper bound.
Human bodies are not perfectly stackable rectangular prisms of uniform size.
Not necessary to analyze pictures of world class athletes because real statistics exist. If you assume an average height of 1.6 meters for adults, the average adult "underweight" comes to 43 kg.
And maybe close to 50% of the Jews being transported in were children (under 14). We assume 30% of the population are children, another 33% are used for labor, 37% adults are not used for labor. If this is true 47% of the population sent to Belzec were children, which definitely brings the average weight under 40 kg. I didn't use this for my calculations above though, showing you that I'm not obsessive about minimizing.
Ohrdruf wasn't an extermination camp. So if it was a "cover-up," it would be a cover-up of a small number of dead bodies who weren't gassed.
I agree. But do you think that's a plausible reason why the bodies were exhumed and destroyed at Belzec?
Archie wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2025 2:15 pm
Human bodies are not perfectly stackable rectangular prisms of uniform size.
Decomposing bodies weigh on one another and liquify, filling in open space in a grave where bodies are stacked on top of one another with no dirt.
Nessie wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2025 9:32 am
You use manipulations and assumptions to base your illogical arguments from incredulity on. Just because you cannot believe hundreds of thousands of corpses are buried at Belzec, even though the simplest of calculations is that they could, does not therefore mean there are no mass graves there.
Your "simplest of calculations" = divide total volume by an assumed volume for a human body
Suggesting that as a realistic burial density is sheer idiocy. It is the EXACTLY the sort of calculation I criticized in the other thread (like assuming you can commute downtown in 12 minutes). It would only be useful in obtaining a fanciful upper bound.
Human bodies are not perfectly stackable rectangular prisms of uniform size.
How many corpses could be buried in 21,000m3, using your assumed human body volume, taking into account pressure crushing the decomposing corpse will increase the amount of corpses that fit into that grave size?
I bet you not answer me, because the answer will be way more corpses than you want to admit to.
Below is the revisionist position until 2023 (LECTURES ON THE HOLOCAUST, revised and expanded edition, 2023), by Germar Rudolf:
Audience: And were any forensic investigations carried out at Belzec?
G. Rudolf: Yes. The first investigations were carried out in October 1945, and then again in 1997 and 1999, the latter being much more thorough: core samples were drilled into the soil at five-meter intervals covering the entire camp site, resulting in 2,227 samples (Kola 2000a; cf. O’Neil 1999). Of these samples, 236 revealed a disturbance of the earth layer in 33 different and highly irregular ways. And of these, 137 were “relevant” enough to have their data published. However, only six of them contained human remains—a mere 3% of all samples with a disturbed soil layer, or just 0.3% of all samples collected. The largest layer of corpses found was only 75 cm thick (2.5 feet). What was usually found was a thinly layered scattering of ash mixed with a lot of sand and soil.
Audience: Which means it is proven that humans died at Belzec and their bodies were cremated.
G. Rudolf: True, but no one denies that. But that does not clarify to what extent this happened, nor what caused the deaths. For that, we have to take a closer look at the results. The drillings determined that approximately 21,000 m3 of soil had been disturbed. According to the official version, 600,000 corpses would have to fit into this area, because at Belzec the burning of corpses began after the murder phase was supposedly over.
Similar to Treblinka, Table 20 lists data derived from witness statements about mass graves and mass cremations in the central column, while the right-hand column provides data derived from the aforementioned sample drillings.
Audience: According to this information, then, only 21% of the number of alleged victims would fit into these discovered graves, so about 126,000, something that would confirm Pressac's estimate of the number of victims at Belzec.
G. Rudolf: That would be the case if these graves were filled with ash, but that is not the case. Only occasionally did they find ash mixed with the soil.
Audience: But why are there so many graves at Belzec, if they were not used?
G. Rudolf: The solution to this mystery lies in what happened in the camp area between 1945 and 1965. Polish researcher Andrzej Kola wrote (Kola 2000a, p. 65):
“Additional disturbances to archaeological structures were caused by intensive excavations immediately after the war, while the local population was searching for jewelry. The facts make it difficult for archaeologists to define precisely the intervals of the burial pits.”
G. Rudolf: On April 11, 1946, the Zamosc public prosecutor had already explained what some witnesses confirmed (Mattogno 2004a, p. 89):
“At that time, the camp site was completely excavated by the local population in search of valuables. This brought to the surface ashes of corpses and wood, charred bones, as well as bones that were only partially charred.”
G. Rudolf: In other words: the pits found by means of the core drillings are not just mass graves, but to a large extent the remains of wild excavations carried out by treasure hunters after the war. This also explains why the pits found are completely irregular, both with regard to their sizes, shapes and orientations as well as their contents and the position, arrangement and composition of the layers of earth in them.
If we consider that at least 90% of the material from the core drillings showed neither human remains nor ashes, then the maximum number of corpses that could have been buried in these pits – 126,000 – must be reduced by at least a factor of 10, because the number 126,000 is based on the assumption that the corpses were packed as tightly as possible in all these pits.
Audience: So the mass murder in Belzec is a maximum of 126,000, but realistically probably only about ten thousand?
G. Rudolf: Or only in the thousands, which is why I would prefer to speak of “mass death” rather than “mass murder”, because the most frequent causes of death in Belzec were probably disease, exhaustion, etc. The results of these forensic investigations have consequences beyond the mere reduction of the number of victims.
From Höfle’s aforementioned radio message, we know that by the end of 1942 exactly 434,500 Jews had been deported to Belzec (although it only says “B”). If, however, no more than 126,000 could have been buried in Belzec – but probably much less than that – what happened to the majority of these deported Jews, who were not buried in Belzec? They were obviously not killed there.
Audience: Then they must have been taken somewhere else.
G. Rudolf: Correct, which confirms the revisionist thesis that Belzec was a transit camp. Incidentally, during the sample drillings, a search for the remains of the gas chambers was also carried out. However, there were no traces of buildings similar to what the witnesses reported. What was found instead were the ruins of a multi-car garage.
Audience: A garage building?
G. Rudolf: Correct, recognizable by a repair shaft.
Audience: After the graves were located through the drillings, did anyone actually exhume the mass graves and examine their contents?
G. Rudolf: Surprisingly, no.
Audience: But that would have been the only possibility of determining the actual size of the graves and the number of corpses in them.
G. Rudolf: It seems that since the gigantic mass graves containing hundreds of thousands of victims or their remains were not located, there was little interest in doing anything else. In any case, in 2004 a monument was built in Belzec, which buried a large part of the camp under concrete (Berkofsky 2004), which basically means that from now on there will be no more research done here, something that would disturb the dead, but now it is time to mourn, pray and cry sorrows.’
What did happen inside Belzec, and when answering show your evidence?
What evidence is there that the 434,508 people who Hofle recorded as arriving, then left and where did they go?
Nessie wrote: ↑Fri Jan 31, 2025 1:02 pm
If I were in the audience, I would ask Rudolf
What did happen inside Belzec, and when answering show your evidence?
What evidence is there that the 434,508 people who Hofle recorded as arriving, then left and where did they go?
He would answer what archaeological evidence is there of the 434,000 people transported inside these alleged 21,000 m3 graves? Did they allow the complete exhumation or not? Why not? What is the fear? If even Pressac admits 1/4 of the victims, then the rest went somewhere else.
Nessie wrote: ↑Fri Jan 31, 2025 1:02 pm
If I were in the audience, I would ask Rudolf
What did happen inside Belzec, and when answering show your evidence?
What evidence is there that the 434,508 people who Hofle recorded as arriving, then left and where did they go?
He would answer what archaeological evidence is there of the 434,000 people transported inside these alleged 21,000 m3 graves? Did they allow the complete exhumation or not? Why not? What is the fear? If even Pressac admits 1/4 of the victims, then the rest went somewhere else.
He would not be able to answer my questions, so I am expected to believe no gassings or mass graves and most people left the camp, with no evidence of what happened. I prefer to believe in what was evidenced to have happened.
TlsMS93 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 31, 2025 12:46 pm
If we consider that at least 90% of the material from the core drillings showed neither human remains nor ashes
I have no idea where he is getting this number, but if 10% of the material were ash or bodies, that comes to 2100 cubic meters. If we assume 3 liters of ash per cremated body (this is a very high estimate) that would be enough ash for 700,000. Since there a tiny amount of bodies in the graves, we can adduce the remains were mostly ash, which means there's vast amounts of ash in the graves. Rudolf shot himself in the foot with this one.
TlsMS93 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 31, 2025 12:46 pm
If we consider that at least 90% of the material from the core drillings showed neither human remains nor ashes
I have no idea where he is getting this number, but if 10% of the material were ash or bodies, that comes to 2100 cubic meters. If we assume 3 liters of ash per cremated body (this is a very high estimate) that would be enough ash for 700,000. Since there a tiny amount of bodies in the graves, we can adduce the remains were mostly ash, which means there's vast amounts of ash in the graves. Rudolf shot himself in the foot with this one.
Did you read what I have explained or did you read the results of Kola's field research in its most minute detail? Or did you just summarize what Kola considered sufficient to extrapolate and corroborate the total number of deaths of 434,000? Why does Pressac not agree with these numbers?
“Of these samples, 236 revealed a disturbance of the earth layer in 33 different and highly irregular ways. And of these, 137 were “relevant” enough to have their data published. However, only six of them contained human remains—a mere 3% of all samples with a disturbed soil layer, or just 0.3% of all samples collected”.
In other words, most of the samples analyzed proportionally had more soil than ash. Are you saying that Rudolf got all these numbers out of his ass?
TlsMS93 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 31, 2025 12:46 pm
If we consider that at least 90% of the material from the core drillings showed neither human remains nor ashes
I have no idea where he is getting this number, but if 10% of the material were ash or bodies, that comes to 2100 cubic meters. If we assume 3 liters of ash per cremated body (this is a very high estimate) that would be enough ash for 700,000. Since there a tiny amount of bodies in the graves, we can adduce the remains were mostly ash, which means there's vast amounts of ash in the graves. Rudolf shot himself in the foot with this one.
Did you read what I have explained or did you read the results of Kola's field research in its most minute detail? Or did you just summarize what Kola considered sufficient to extrapolate and corroborate the total number of deaths of 434,000? Why does Pressac not agree with these numbers?
“Of these samples, 236 revealed a disturbance of the earth layer in 33 different and highly irregular ways. And of these, 137 were “relevant” enough to have their data published. However, only six of them contained human remains—a mere 3% of all samples with a disturbed soil layer, or just 0.3% of all samples collected”.
In other words, most of the samples analyzed proportionally had more soil than ash. Are you saying that Rudolf got all these numbers out of his ass?
This comes from Mattogno I think, this is the full quote
The answer is implied in the analyses of the probes taken out during the drillings. In fact, Andrzej Kola publishes the results of 137 samples – obviously the most significant ones of the 236 samples taken altogether – but out of these only two (482/XV-30-60 and 486/XV-25-50) bear the explicit designation “human corpses.”236 The symbol designating “human bones and wax-fat mass” – a kind of stylized double X – appears, in addition to the samples just mentioned, only on four more samples (485/XV-30-50, grave 10, 286/XVI-90-40 and 332/XVI-85-40, grave 3, and finally 1042/XIV-45-80, grave 20).237 The thickest layer is the one belonging to sample 332/XV-85-40 (described as “tooth/human hair/water/human hair”), which corresponds to approximately 15% of the depth of the grave ( = 5 meters), thus to about 0.75 meters. Kola further mentions the discovery of corpses in a layer 1 meter thick in grave 27,238 but without providing a visual representation of the location of the 4 drillings carried out in this location. In any case, the order of magnitude does not change.
In all other instances, the corpse layer is thinner and is always located at the bottom of the grave. Hence, there are only three graves which contain more or less strongly saponified bodies. Moreover, in the light of the approximating method used by Kola (one sample every 5 meters), strictly speaking one cannot even say that these graves contained a layer of bodies as extensive as their surface area. This becomes evident, at last, in the results of the analyses published by Kola: Human remains are present in 3 out of 7 samples in grave 10, and in 1 out of 5 samples in grave 3 and grave 20. In these, the only three graves containing corpses,239 human remains were identified in 5 out of 17 samples, i.e., in fewer than 30% of these cases. Thus, from all 236 drilling samples, we have only 5 ‘positive’ cases, that is, 2%! What does that
mean, apart from any extrapolations? It means simply that the drill, which had a diameter of 65 millimeters (2.5 inches), went like a lance five times through the remains of three or four bodies; in other words, in concrete terms, Kola has discovered 15 or 20 corpses. Therefore, the only legitimate conclusion one can draw from these samples is that the graves mentioned contained only rare corpses here and there.
The problem here is conflation being made between "bodies" and "ash". Not the same thing. You guys confused yourselves on this one.
Nearly all of the graves contain ash, enormous layers, as described by Kola. There aren't too many bodies, that's because they were exhumed, destroyed, then ashes dumped back in.
But are you trying to say that they were unaware of the official narrative, that bodies were exhumed and then cremated and their ashes buried? Are you saying that they deliberately mistook bodies for ashes?
When they mention human remains, they are logically talking about ashes, there were also remains of charred or slightly charred human bodies and they mention this purely to determine that 75 cm was the layer of corpses.
Since the samples had relatively more soil than mixed ashes, the supported number of bodies in these 21,000 m3 would be lower than the 126,000 bodies proposed by Pressac. To support the 126,000 bodies, the samples would have to be full of ashes and little soil to have this result.
So yes, people died or arrived dead at Belzec, were buried and due to problems with the water table they decided to exhume and cremate them. The scale and the reasons for these deaths are what separates us from you. Where did they go if they didn't all die? That will be their last hope of salvation, but that's it, a football stadium doesn't have to explain where its fans went after they left the stadium. The stadium in this metaphor was the Soviet territories occupied by the Germans.
