The CODOH Revisionist Forum

Archie wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2025 12:03 am

bombsaway wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2025 7:09 pm So the notion that only say 20,000 were buried here is illogical given what was achieved in the UK (without necessarily maximizing efficiency). At UK rates 2000 cubic meters of space would be necessary to house this many bodies.

Argument from incredulity.

There are lots of mass graves that have rather low corpse densities. Hyper-efficient corpse packing isn't the norm, especially if the deaths are spread out over a period of time.

The fact that they could have packed the graves at least 10x more efficiently than they actually did does not disprove transit camp thesis, or whatever you're going with. It just means that they were acting illogically.

With 20,000 buried there, you're looking at 1 emaciated Jew (with high probability of being child) per cubic meter. This just seems very low too me, extremely wasteful in fact, and I challenge you to show me that this is the norm with mass graves. A number of 80,000 seems more like a reasonable minimum.

AI calculates that "at 100% packing efficiency, you can fit 25 humans weighing 40 kg each in a 1 cubic meter volume". So if we're going with a 20,000 number that means literally the graves were over 95% dirt. Even with 4 per cubic meter we're looking at over 80%.

But we can move on from this to your next point

Archie wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2025 12:03 am Why would burning the bodies be a problem for the revisionist thesis? You realize this was done regularly in the non-extermination camps, right? So why do you think cremation is per se proof of exterminations?

You're appealing to a norm in other camps, which is that bodies were burned. But the norm, as far as I'm aware, is bodies were burned soon after death for hygienic reasons and to not necessitate burial. Do you agree with this? Can you point to other examples where bodies were exhumed after being buried? It seems quite obvious this was the case here, but maybe you disagree.

So the question is, why did it happen differently here (and at the other Reinhard camps / Chelmno) -- assuming no other examples of this happening. You can focus on the question of the exhumation.

You're starting to answer my questions though, so I'm happy with this so far and I encourage you to continue.

Far enough away for information to spread but at the same time the world seems to know everything that happened there. This is the exterminationist dichotomy. Best documented event in the world but at the same time they destroyed the evidence.

Treblinka did not close because of the revolt, but according to the exterminationist thesis, there was no longer any purpose because the Jews in the ghettos had already been killed and AB would be able to finish the job.

So Treblinka having been better cleared of evidence than Belzec is not explained, only in the exterminationists' chronology of events.

TlsMS93 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2025 12:53 am Far enough away for information to spread but at the same time the world seems to know everything that happened there. This is the exterminationist dichotomy. Best documented event in the world but at the same time they destroyed the evidence.

You know Germany lost the war, right?

So Treblinka having been better cleared of evidence than Belzec is not explained, only in the exterminationists' chronology of events.

Sorry, guy. Time only moves in one directions

Exactly, it was just because of that. Victors in battle impose their will. Vae victis.

Absolutely and it goes against the exterminationists

Way to miss the point, genius

bombsaway wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2025 12:53 am The fact that they could have packed the graves at least 10x more efficiently than they actually did does not disprove transit camp thesis, or whatever you're going with. It just means that they were acting illogically.

With 20,000 buried there, you're looking at 1 emaciated Jew (with high probability of being child) per cubic meter. This just seems very low too me, extremely wasteful in fact, and I challenge you to show me that this is the norm with mass graves. A number of 80,000 seems more like a reasonable minimum.

AI calculates that "at 100% packing efficiency, you can fit 25 humans weighing 40 kg each in a 1 cubic meter volume". So if we're going with a 20,000 number that means literally the graves were over 95% dirt. Even with 4 per cubic meter we're looking at over 80%.

But we can move on from this to your next point

The Katyn graves had about 8.7 bodies per square meter. And the Katyn bodies had a relatively orderly/efficient arrangement. The bodies were carefully stacked (at least in the main grave). Most mass graves are sloppier and more ad hoc. In the early Communist reports on Treblinka, they excavated three graves with about 300 bodies, only around 2 bodies per square meter. You are claiming 79-109 bodies per square meter, and you are acting like we are crazy for questioning this.

This map hardly suggests they were going for world record packing efficiency. Is this the grave layout you would come up with if you were going for maximum efficiency?

You're appealing to a norm in other camps, which is that bodies were burned. But the norm, as far as I'm aware, is bodies were burned soon after death for hygienic reasons and to not necessitate burial. Do you agree with this? Can you point to other examples where bodies were exhumed after being buried? It seems quite obvious this was the case here, but maybe you disagree.

So the question is, why did it happen differently here (and at the other Reinhard camps / Chelmno) -- assuming no other examples of this happening. You can focus on the question of the exhumation.

You're starting to answer my questions though, so I'm happy with this so far and I encourage you to continue.

At Auschwitz in 1942, they buried bodies because of inadequate cremation capacity and those bodies were later disinterred and burned. It seems the preference was, where possible, to cremate bodies ASAP, but in instances where this could not be done they buried them (this happened periodically at many camps). And Auschwitz is an example that comes to mind where the bodies were later burned.

Ohrdruf is another example.

TlsMS93 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2025 12:09 am

Archie wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2025 12:03 am

bombsaway wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2025 7:09 pm So the notion that only say 20,000 were buried here is illogical given what was achieved in the UK (without necessarily maximizing efficiency). At UK rates 2000 cubic meters of space would be necessary to house this many bodies.

Argument from incredulity.

There are lots of mass graves that have rather low corpse densities. Hyper-efficient corpse packing isn't the norm, especially if the deaths are spread out over a period of time.

But this is only the beginning for the revisionists, who then have to explain why the bodies were extracted, destroyed, and the ashes diluted with sand. Since they haven't done this, they without doubt are "losing" when it comes to Kola's report on Belzec. They can criticize the Orthodox narrative, but they lose by default by not providing any possible version of events that can even be tested. As I said before, they can make any favorable assumption they want, disregard the lack of evidence, just provide something or admit that they can't, or call into question the accuracy of the study itself. No other option as far as I can see.

Why would burning the bodies be a problem for the revisionist thesis? You realize this was done regularly in the non-extermination camps, right? So why do you think cremation is per se proof of exterminations?

They have to prove why the hell most of the extermination was concentrated in places where there wasn't even a muffle furnace and relying on inadequate open-air cremations, without enough fuel and without transport logistics, just for Treblinka there would be 200 thousand trucks harvesting nearby brushwood and taking it to camp for the 800,000 unfortunates, first being harvested in winter and then transported over muddy roads during the spring thaw.

Why was the cleaning in Belzec not as good as they say it happened in Treblinka when it was closed relatively early compared to other extermination camps?

That is the argument from incredulity. Just because you cannot work out, or imagine mass outdoor pyres as possible, does not make it so.

Archie claims argument from incredulity, without explaining why.

Archie wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2025 6:22 am ... You are claiming 79-109 bodies per square meter, and you are acting like we are crazy for questioning this...

I posted this simple calculation before. 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.

A cubic meter is 1000 litres. At 48 litres per person, that is 20.8 corpses per square meter.

You take and create the most outlandish, complicated calculations regarding grave density, to form your argument from incredulity. If the simplest form of calculation is done based on known figures, the result is one that is not outlandish and your argument from incredulity fails.

The mass graves of Belzec are evidenced and would fit hundreds of thousands of corpses.

Nessie wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2025 10:23 am

Archie wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2025 6:22 am ... You are claiming 79-109 bodies per square meter, and you are acting like we are crazy for questioning this...

I posted this simple calculation before. 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.

A cubic meter is 1000 litres. At 48 litres per person, that is 20.8 corpses per square meter.

You take and create the most outlandish, complicated calculations regarding grave density, to form your argument from incredulity. If the simplest form of calculation is done based on known figures, the result is one that is not outlandish and your argument from incredulity fails.

The mass graves of Belzec are evidenced and would fit hundreds of thousands of corpses.

But, you're totally not taking the linear distance and dividing it by the theoretical top speed at all.

Has the thread traveled the circle again yet?

Stubble wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2025 11:15 am

Nessie wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2025 10:23 am

Archie wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2025 6:22 am ... You are claiming 79-109 bodies per square meter, and you are acting like we are crazy for questioning this...

I posted this simple calculation before. 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.

A cubic meter is 1000 litres. At 48 litres per person, that is 20.8 corpses per square meter.

You take and create the most outlandish, complicated calculations regarding grave density, to form your argument from incredulity. If the simplest form of calculation is done based on known figures, the result is one that is not outlandish and your argument from incredulity fails.

The mass graves of Belzec are evidenced and would fit hundreds of thousands of corpses.

But, you're totally not taking the linear distance and dividing it by the theoretical top speed at all.

Has the thread traveled the circle again yet?

If you assume they were all babies and that the bodies were ground up and compacted them, that no dirt was used, and that every last inch of potential grave volume was crammed with bodies, then the numbers are just barely possible! And if it was possible, then it did happen. Holocaust proved. QED.

Archie wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2025 3:36 pm

Stubble wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2025 11:15 am

Nessie wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2025 10:23 am


I posted this simple calculation before. 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.

A cubic meter is 1000 litres. At 48 litres per person, that is 20.8 corpses per square meter.

You take and create the most outlandish, complicated calculations regarding grave density, to form your argument from incredulity. If the simplest form of calculation is done based on known figures, the result is one that is not outlandish and your argument from incredulity fails.

The mass graves of Belzec are evidenced and would fit hundreds of thousands of corpses.

But, you're totally not taking the linear distance and dividing it by the theoretical top speed at all.

Has the thread traveled the circle again yet?

If you assume they were all babies and that the bodies were ground up and compacted them, that no dirt was used, and that every last inch of potential grave volume was crammed with bodies, then the numbers are just barely possible! And if it was possible, then it did happen. Holocaust proved. QED.

I am assuming the average person was 48 litres, or 77% the size of the average modern day adult. You are misrepresenting the size I have used, by claiming "all babies". It is reasonable to say that a corpse, as it decomposes under pressure from corpses piled on top of it, will reduce in volume by about a quarter.

The only other mass grave sites ever found, that have grave volumes anything like the 21,000m3 at Belzec, are TII, Sobibor and Chelmno. No other mass death has resulted in that volume of mass graves on one site.

We are 12 pages into this thread, Archie, can you do me a favor and drop the revisionist stance in here real quick so I can look at it?

My how I don't want to scroll through all these circles.

Stubble wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2025 4:57 pm We are 12 pages into this thread, Archie, can you do me a favor and drop the revisionist stance in here real quick so I can look at it?

My how I don't want to scroll through all these circles.

Honestly, I feel like I pretty much said what I have to say in the OP and in the wiki. See also Mattogno, HH#28, the section on the Kola study.

The rest of the thread is just a series of red herrings by Nessie and BA.

I repeat, instead of discussing the lack of demand from the competent authorities to exhume the entire land and calculate how much total ash there is and from there estimate how many bodies were actually cremated there, we are left making concessions to them about stratigraphy, soil penetration studies, saponized bodies. We are very patient with them, they are comfortable arguing ad aeternum about something that is very subjective, this discussion only serves them. In fact, these non-invasive investigations only served for the Jewish authorities to raise monuments where there can no longer be a more in-depth investigation and thus history is mere tradition and not a clear and unequivocal forensic science as any serious archaeological study does.

Archie wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2025 5:24 pm

Stubble wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2025 4:57 pm We are 12 pages into this thread, Archie, can you do me a favor and drop the revisionist stance in here real quick so I can look at it?

My how I don't want to scroll through all these circles.

Honestly, I feel like I pretty much said what I have to say in the OP and in the wiki. See also Mattogno, HH#28, the section on the Kola study.

The rest of the thread is just a series of red herrings by Nessie and BA.

Whew, that makes things easier. Thanks for clearing that up!

I'll pour one out for a dead thread then. Because I think this horse has been beaten to absolute death. I think it died a while back to be honest.

At some point Archimedes may be by to study it though, he had a thing for circles.