Funny he keeps saying this because the graves actually are very haphazard in shape.
Even if Kola overestimated the grave capacity by 25%, (this is arguable -- he might also have underestimated, and to what extent one cannot say), I think you'll find it difficult to address his findings, whereas reasonable explanations exist for the mainstream such as the bodies being burned in graves (as per Pfannenstiel), decomposition freeing up more volume over the 8 months the camp was in operation, careful body placement (as per Provan).
And the reason the ash dumping was not haphazardThe Kola study directly evidences body destruction at Belzec. It strongly suggests that mass burial took place (hence the grave space) and then bodies were taken out, destroyed, and ashes deposited back into the graves. The ash layers are evidence of a systematic process of ash dumping, rather than something haphazard. As Kola says, many of the graves are "crematory" graves and homogenous, meaning they only hold ash mixture, in between layers of dirt. The total volume of ash layers, according to Kola's descriptions, is prodigious. In one grave alone we can deduce 1000 cubic meters. If that were pure ash it would be enough to hold 400,000. It's not pure ash though, so we can't extrapolate here.
. . .
As for how many died at Belzec, again that is unknown and we can't accurately extrapolate from Kola's study. The study doesn't prove any specific number, but I think we could say it evidences a large amount, since it would be unreasonable for the Nazis to distribute the ash of a few people across a vast amount of material.
If it was haphazard, rather than layers, we wouldn't know that eg grave number 5 (which according to Kola is 30 meters by 10 meters) has a continuous layer of ash at the bottom (thus totaling 300 cubic meters). It would be viable for revisionists to argue that there wasn't a lot of ash mixture in the graves (like maybe it was only at the sides?). According to Kola, because he was taking measurements from different parts of the grave, the ash mixture was spread across in a more or less uniform way. When eventually you come up with your explanation for what happened, you have to take this into account.
Ash being more prevalent in certain layers or on the sides tells us nothing about anything. Nothing you are saying makes any sense. You are mad we don't have an OFFICIAL ANSWER to your nonsensical question? OK I will give you my OFFICIAL ANSWER. Here it is:bombsaway wrote:If it was haphazard, rather than layers, we wouldn't know that eg grave number 5 (which according to Kola is 30 meters by 10 meters) has a continuous layer of ash at the bottom (thus totaling 300 cubic meters). It would be viable for revisionists to argue that there wasn't a lot of ash mixture in the graves (like maybe it was only at the sides?). According to Kola, because he was taking measurements from different parts of the grave, the ash mixture was spread across in a more or less uniform way. When eventually you come up with your explanation for what happened, you have to take this into account.
The "story" I find online, from common sources about the Holocaust is that death tolls range from mid 400,000 to 600,000. It is not concession to go with the lower end of the estimations.Archie wrote: ↑Tue Nov 26, 2024 9:57 pm A little summary of the thread so far, reviewing the points in the OP.
It seems it has been conceded that 600,000 is indeed completely unrealistic.1) The story is that around 500,000-600,000 bodies were buried at Belzec. Where were these bodies buried?
The suggestion seems to be that only 434,000 were killed and that perhaps only 250K were actually buried with the others being burned directly.
Are you sure that corpses decomposing is an assumption? Is that not like claiming the sun will rise in the morning is an assumption?The other attempted explanation is to assume the earlier bodies decomposed tremendously which allowed space for fresh corpses.
When digging into graves, I would expect them to lose their liner dimensions and to become more irregular. He first gave evidence in 1946, about what he saw in 1942.2) The Witnesses. Kola's grave map is nothing like the descriptions of many of the key witnesses. Star witness Rudolf Reder for example described very large, long graves, all of uniform shape and dimensions.
Lying and exaggerating are types of "normal witness error". You cannot prove he lied, as you have no evidence to prove an absence of a number of mass graves, from other witnesses, or archaeological surveys.There seems to be some difference of opinion here with Nessie brushing off the problem as "normal witness errors," as he always does. But bombsaway seems to concede Reder was probably lying/exaggerating due to emotion. Of course if Reder was really there in Nov 1942 and saw the real graves, I would wonder why he would need to falsify his account instead of just describing the terrible reality that he would have actually seen.
Bombsaway does not think layers of ash in the borehole samples, prove 434,000 were executed.There has been no detailed discussion of this point. Bombs thinks that because the ash was in "layers" (as opposed to what?) that this proves 434K (his preferred figure) were executed at the camp.3) The human remains in the graves include some unburnt bodies and some cremains. The grave areas are by no means pure ash (contrary to what some of you have assumed).
There is other evidence from different sources regarding the Belzec train tragedy. Gerstein was unstable and kicked out of the SS. Perhaps the ash layers came from the electocutions at Belzec, the white hot floors due to electricity and the dumping of the cremains into tippers below the building.
What I'm saying is that I've noticed you guys don't post much unless revisionists are posting. And, no, I'm not going to waste time doing some fancy statistics to try to confirm that. That is my impression. People can decide for themselves if that matches their own observations. To me that is strange because if you had as good a case as you pretend to, you would not need to follow revisionists around reply-guying. You would just write up an article or something that lays it all out. Your side has generally failed to do this. See here, for example.bombsaway wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2024 1:37 amArchie, posts like this are unsubstantive, and probably should be discouraged under forum rules.Archie wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2024 1:23 amIt's your job to present your case. It's not my job to try to coax it out of you. Half the time nobody can tell what you are even arguing and you think that's everyone else's fault. The fact is that you don't like presenting your case. You (and Nessie) are mostly reply guys. Kibitzers. I have discussed Nessie's tactics at length elsewhere. Your thing is to float abstract and poorly defined propositions and then demand that others supply you with highly specific examples etc which you invariably declare to be unsatisfactory based on wholly arbitrary criteria.
(Nessie, do take note that bombsaway is fleeing your stench. If you had some self-awareness, you might ask yourself why. You won't of course. You will continue thinking you are Aristotle. In reality, you are what I like to call an "embarrassing ally.")
You say I'm not presenting a case or what I believe in, but don't list any examples of this (I have in this thread and explicitly did in the post you just quoted, though you omitted that part). "abstract and poorly defined propositions" is another unsubstantiated claim about me.
"invariably declare to be unsatisfactory based on wholly arbitrary criteria. " this is again unsubstantiated.
"Demanding examples"? In this thread I challenged you to provide an explanation for Kola's specific findings. If you think it's unimportant for revisionists to do this, provide a reason why.
Basically your reply here is the equivalent of me calling you as having motivated reasoning /being consistently wrong / avoidant and not backing any of that up. I could if I wanted to, at least on some of these points, like your assertion that the Kola study wasn't available anywhere (it's literally walking distance from me at a library).
Your thing is to float abstract and poorly defined propositions and then demand that others supply you with highly specific examples etc which you invariably declare to be unsatisfactory based on wholly arbitrary criteria.
You understand what I'm asking right: essentially 'explain this piece of evidence [Kola's study] from a revisionist a perspective.' This means all of the study, not just his calculations of grave space or how many intact bodies were found. The ash layers are far more prominent and the end result of the process that happened there.fireofice wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2024 7:39 am
Ash being more prevalent in certain layers or on the sides tells us nothing about anything. Nothing you are saying makes any sense. You are mad we don't have an OFFICIAL ANSWER to your nonsensical question? OK I will give you my OFFICIAL ANSWER. Here it is:
There, now that I have given you my OFFICIAL ANSWER, you can stop saying no one has answered you.
The part I bolded is significant. That indicates presence throughout of ash throughout the grave.Let me explain Kola's methodology and findings, particularly regarding the layering patterns that are important to your discussion about the graves.
Kola's team used a systematic, grid-based drilling approach. They marked out the entire site in 5-meter intervals and took core samples using 65mm diameter drills that could reach 6 meters deep. This resulted in 2,001 total drill samples that helped them identify 33 mass graves.
The key to understanding the "layers vs haphazard" distinction lies in how they analyzed these core samples. When examining each drill core, they could see distinct horizontal strata (layers) of different materials.
Taking grave #5 as an example you mentioned: The grave measured 32m x 10m and reached 4.5m deep. What made this grave particularly significant was its clear layering pattern:
The bottom had the thickest crematory layer (~1m thick)
Above this was a 50cm layer of soil
Then four distinct layers of cremated remains
Each crematory layer was separated by 20-30cm of sand
This systematic layering tells us several important things:
The material wasn't just dumped in randomly - there was a methodical process of deposition
The presence of multiple distinct layers separated by sand suggests multiple episodes of deposition over time
When they took multiple core samples across the grave area, they found these layers at consistent depths, indicating they extended across the entire grave
This is very different from what a "haphazard" distribution would look like - if remains had just been scattered or dumped randomly, you wouldn't see these clear, horizontal bands of materials extending consistently across the grave space.
The technical term archaeologists use for this kind of evidence is "stratigraphic sequence" - each layer represents a distinct phase of activity. The consistency of these layers across multiple drill points allows archaeologists to reconstruct the systematic nature of how the graves were used and filled.
When you take a core sample, imagine pushing a hollow tube (in this case 65mm wide - about the size of a tennis ball) straight down into the ground. When you pull it back up, you've captured an intact vertical "cylinder" of soil and materials, preserving the exact order and depth of everything you drilled through. This is like taking a perfect vertical slice through layers of a cake - you can see each distinct layer in order.
In examining these cores, archaeologists look for several key indicators:
First, they note any sharp changes in soil color, texture, or composition at specific depths. Natural soil typically has gradual transitions, so abrupt changes often indicate human disturbance.
Second, they look for consistency between nearby samples. If multiple cores taken within a few meters of each other show the same sequence of layers at the same depths (like ash layer → sand → ash layer), this suggests these layers extend horizontally across that area. By mapping where these similar patterns appear and disappear, they can determine the boundaries of a grave.
I suggest you find one blatant example of bad methodology on my part. If it's a constant habit that should be easy for you. Then create a separate thread (eg 'critique of BA's methods') where you link back and we can discuss. It's fair to criticize methodology, but quote my actual posts. I think you're misinterpreting me, so I would like a chance to defend myself. You're the one making the claims.
I'm continuing this conversation in the appropriate thread, but Kola distinguishes between wood ash and human ash in the study. Wood ash is referred to as charcoal, human ash is called "body ashes", "crematory ashes", "crematory contents".Hektor wrote: ↑Sun Dec 01, 2024 3:41 amNo, he didn't. Ash layer is something else than having earth materials that contain some ash and something that could be human remains. In theory you can find that at quite many places, especially when tat was in a war zone at some stage. So the probative value is low at best. And finding 'something' at said places was to be expected if the Revisionist Thesis was true anyway. So what did they find that is distinctive in case the Exterminationist Thesis is true?bombsaway wrote: ↑Sat Nov 30, 2024 8:09 pmYou can respond to this in the other thread but what they found was perfectly clear. Precise grave descriptions showing thousands of cubic meters of ash layers
https://www.holocausthistoricalsociety. ... tions.html
no one has explained the ash layers from a revisionist perspective viewtopic.php?p=1599#p1599
Well, I don't see how the cremains could be "pure" with outdoor pyres. How would the Germans have separated the wood ash and from the cremains? Seems impossible given the described procedure. Also, there should be significantly more wood ash than cremains.bombsaway wrote: ↑Sun Dec 01, 2024 3:54 am I'm continuing this conversation in the appropriate thread, but Kola distinguishes between wood ash and human ash in the study. Wood ash is referred to as charcoal, human ash is called "body ashes", "crematory ashes", "crematory contents".
What the findings show is that mass body destruction occurred at Belzec. Every grave he reported on contained human remains, most frequently crematory remains (in 30/33 graves). You can also read through this thread to see that the justifications for reading the ash layers as enormous (thousands of cubic meters at least, grave 5 alone contains about a thousand according to Kola's measurements). I'm not going to recapitulate everything for you, you can read through my responses.
What I asked, and what revisionists failed to do in this thread (apparently refused to do) is explain the presence of large crematory layers as well as the large amount of grave space. Take a crack at it if you wish. I don't think there is a plausible answer within your framework, or none has been given so far.
Kola differentiates between cremains and charcoal in his descriptions,
Not all graves contain charcoal. The separation could have occurred because bodies were burnt on steel rails below which was the woodGrave Pit No. 8
This grave was located in the south-western part of the camp. The second pylon from the 1960's was erected over it. The general shape of the grave was in the shape of a lengthened rectangle, with the dimensions of 28 meters by 10 meters. Additional drilling revealed that 2 neighbouring graves existed, joined together as one, at a later date. The depth of the original grave was about 4 meters, and the bottom layer consisted of dense crematory remains. The fillings were covered with 20 -30 cm of sand, coming probably from the soil separating the graves. The ditch created that way, with the depth of 2 meters was filled with body ashes, charcoal and brick rubble. The volume of the pit amounted to about 850 meters.
Grave Pit No. 9
A relatively small grave with an irregular shape was located in the eastern part of the camp, between the pylon, and the present line of the camp enclosure. The pit was an irregular shape with the dimensions of 8 meters by 10 meters. The depth exceeded 3.80 meters. The contents of the pit were crematory remains and charcoal. The estimated volume of the grave amounted to about 280 meters.
Grave Pit No. 10
One of the biggest graves located in the north-central part of the camp. It was rectangular in shape, with dimensions of 24 meters by 18 meters. The grave was very deep, over 5.20 meters, and the drills were stopped because of bodies in wax-fat transformation and underground waters. One drill at the depth of 4.40 meters revealed the appearance of several centimetres layer of white sand mixed with rich lime. Over body layers there were some levels of crematory remains, mixed with charcoal in turn with layers of sandy soil. The estimated volume of the grave amounted to about 2100 meters.
Grave Pit No.11
This grave of relatively small volume was located in the north-eastern corner of the camp. The dimensions of the grave was 9 meters by 5 meters with a depth of 1.90 meters. A small layer of crematory remains was found. At the depth of about 50 cm remains of musty wood was located. The estimated volume of the grave amounted to about 80 meters.
Grave Pit No.12
Located immediately to the north of grave pit 10, an L-shaped grave with the foot measuring 20 meters, with a depth that reached below 4 meters. The grave contained crematory in layers. In the separating layers charcoal and brick rubble was found. The volume of the grave amounted to about 400 meters.
Grave Pit No. 13
Located towards the west of grave No. 12. One of the concrete ever-burning fires from the 1960's was placed over it. Dimensions of the grave which was trapezoid in shape, was determined as 12.50 meters by 11 meters and a height of 17 meters, with a depth reaching up to 4.80 meters. The grave contained body remains of mixed character. There was a layer of bodies in wax-fat transformation with a thickness of about 1 meter in the bottom part; directly over it there was a layer of sand and lime. Above there were layers of crematory remains and charcoal. The volume of the grave was estimated at 920 meters.
So unless all the body parts are falling into the wood beneath, there's your separation. Testimonies like this also evidence far more use of gasoline than you adduce in your imagined version of the Holocaust you don't think happened.Heinrich Matthes, who was responsible for the
extermination sector in Treblinka, testifies:
An SS-Oberscharfuehrer or Hauptscharfuehrer Floss arrived at this
time, who, so I presume, must previously have been in another camp.
He then had the installation built for burning the corpses. The
incineration was carried out by placing railroad rails on blocks of
concrete. The corpses were then piled up on these rails. Brushwood
was placed under the rails. The wood was drenched with gasoline. Not
only the newly obtained corpses were burnt in this way, but also those
exhumed from the ditches.33
What have I skipped exactly? It's clear from the study (and previous ones) that the cremains were mixed with sand and then deposited in the graves in layers. Their volume is immense, in the thousands of cubic meters. This is what you should explain, if you're saying this study supports your framework.There's unburnt remains. There are even animal remains. The volume of actual cremains is much, much less than 21,000 cu meters. Moreover, translating ash volume into a number of bodies is quite difficult.
The key difficulties for you are 1) the original burial of the whole bodies, and 2) the cremation of those bodies. Cremation reduces the mass by like 95% so it is obvious why your are so eager to skip ahead to that.
And how would the rails keep bones from falling through? Especially if you burn the body well enough for the bones to become friable?So unless all the body parts are falling into the wood beneath, there's your separation. Testimonies like this also evidence far more use of gasoline than you adduce in your imagined version of the Holocaust you don't think happened.
Charcoal also could have been repurposed after use and not necessarily put back in the graves. There's no witness testimony that the burnt wood was dumped in the graves (which Kola's study evinces) and there's no witness evidence it was repurposed. So this is an unknown.
You're asking for an explanation of why so little wood ash, among other details. 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? Dilute them to 1 body per cubic meter of "ash" if you want, but offer an explanation. Your silence here is more meaningful than any response in this thread so far.Archie wrote: ↑Sun Dec 01, 2024 9:26 pm
I would interpret "mixed with charcoal" to mean that they were not perfectly separated. And in other instances where he doesn't specifically mention charcoal, I would not be willing to assume 100% cremains or even anywhere close to that. Again, in aggregate, the wood ash should be the majority of the ash.
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.bombsaway wrote: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?
