The Kola Study - An Own Goal by Team Holocaust

[Archie]

I remember we had a thread on this last year, but sadly it is now lost.

For background, see the wiki page
https://wiki.codohforum.com/pages/index ... Kola_study

Here are what I see as the major issues.

1) The story is that around 500,000-600,000 bodies were buried at Belzec. Where were these bodies buried?

The graves estimated by Kola are 5,490 sq meters in area and 21,310 cu meters in volume. Keep in mind that those values are extrapolated from 65 mm boreholes. It's not even a given that they were that large.

600,000 bodies would imply:

109.3 bodies per sq meter
28.2 bodies per cu meter

In order to fit 28 people in 1 cu meter of space, the people would need to weigh only 35 kg on average and there would have to be ZERO dead space and no dirt. You'd have to run the bodies through a meat grinder to do that.

Mattogno suggests 8 people per cu meter as more realistic maximum which would correspond to 170,480 bodies. (Not to say the actual figure was necessarily anywhere near the maximum).

Muehlenkamp tries to (must) argue for around 20-22 bodies per cu meter, implicitly conceding that 600,000 is not even possible. He prefers the lower number, 434K, since that gives slightly less ridiculous numbers (20 vs 28 bodies per cu meter).

Muehlenkamp, in order to salvage this, is forced to assume that the bodies were small. Not only that, he also assumes significant space was saved through decomposition of the bodies, i.e., he assumes they waited for the bodies to decompose significantly, then added more to top off the graves. In order to use as little grave space as physically possible for some reason? That is getting rather desperate to try to make the numbers to work.

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.

Reder:

One pit was 100 meters long and 25 meters wide. One pit held about 100,000 people. In November 1942 there were 30 pits, hence 3 million corpses.

Kola:


Even if we are willing to overlook the fact that Reder's dimensions are ridiculously exaggerated, there would remain the problem that his description is qualitatively very, very wrong. It's damning.

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).

Mattogno notes that of the samples for which detail was shown (presumably the more impressive samples), "more than half show only a very thin layer of sand and ash, whereas among the remainder the percentage of sand is not less than 50%, and the thickness of the sand/ash layer varies greatly."

One last point would be an indirect point. Which side has been more interested in these results? Certainly the revisionists. It seems there was a bit of buzz early on among Holocaust promoters but this waned quickly. Try buying a copy of Kola's book. It's impossible. You literally cannot buy it which is odd if it supposedly proves the Holocaust. And then there's the other curiosity that within a few years of this study, they covered the entire site over with concrete, precluding any further archaeological work.

[bombsaway]

The thing is, in regards to #1, there are various explanations here like bodies being burnt, Kola not investigating all the graves (he says this explicitly in his study - there may have been more), and the physics of decomposing bodies.

But revisionists have no explanation for a) the large grave volume (21,000 cubic meters) b) the layers of ash deposited through out (in 95% of the graves), mixed with sand

Give me a hypothetical situation that makes sense that would lead to these findings.

---
You can also look at Sobibor and Chelmno studies which show the same thing more or less.

[Nazgul]

But revisionists have no explanation for a) the large grave volume (21,000 cubic meters) b) the layers of ash deposited through out (in 95% of the graves), mixed with sand.

Give me a hypothetical situation

I will present a factual presentation, no hypothesis here.

You assume ground disturbances are graves. You are again in error.

The Central Jewish Historical Commission in Poland, compiled in late 1945, [which] stated that the terrain of the Treblinka II camp had been pulverized with aerial bombs and unexploded artillery duds a few months after its liberation by an engineers unit of the 65th Red Army.


If you think bombs only make small indentations in the ground that cannot be mistaken for graves, reconsider.

This bombardment would create serious ground disturbance mistaken for graves. There are reports of 1600 people dead on a transport to Belzec. These dead would have to be taken care of.

The same happened at Treblinka; one should imagine the explosions would mix the ashes and sand together nicely. There are also many cases of Jews spreading the ashes of Nona Rebecca and uncle Ishmael, including favourite pets around Treblinka.

On the account of this evidence the study of CS Coles has little meaning.

[bombsaway]

But revisionists have no explanation for a) the large grave volume (21,000 cubic meters) b) the layers of ash deposited through out (in 95% of the graves), mixed with sand.

Give me a hypothetical situation

I will present a factual presentation, no hypothesis here.

You assume ground disturbances are graves. You are again in error.

The Central Jewish Historical Commission in Poland, compiled in late 1945, [which] stated that the terrain of the Treblinka II camp had been pulverized with aerial bombs and unexploded artillery duds a few months after its liberation by an engineers unit of the 65th Red Army.


If you think bombs only make small indentations in the ground that cannot be mistaken for graves, reconsider.

This bombardment would create serious ground disturbance mistaken for graves. There are reports of 1600 people dead on a transport to Belzec. These dead would have to be taken care of.

The same happened at Treblinka; one should imagine the explosions would mix the ashes and sand together nicely. There are also many cases of Jews spreading the ashes of Nona Rebecca and uncle Ishmael, including favourite pets around Treblinka.

On the account of this evidence the study of CS Coles has little meaning.

I can respond to this in depth, but does a post like this have the support of revisionists on this forum?

I should remind you of descriptions like

Grave Pit No.5

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

When Kola speaks of layers he speaks of uniform findings across different drills at consistent depths. That's what a layer is.

[Nessie]

The 21,310m3 that Kola identified as disturbed ground containing human remains, is the equivalent to 8.5 Olympic sized swimming pools. Name a mass grave site on earth, from any mass death, plague, any cause, that remotely approaches that size. The only other places where such a volume of disturbed ground and remains have been found, are TII, Sobibor and Chelmno. That cannot be, and is evidenced not to be, a coincidence.

As for how many corpses would fit inside mass graves, the answer is unknown, since other mass graves were of clothed corpses, or corpses buried close to each other, but not pile up. There are also reports of and evidence that corrosive substances were added to the graves. That means the corpses buried first, decompose quickly, with no barrier due to the lack of clothing and under pressure from more corpses being piled above. They did not need to wait for the corpses to decompose, they just did as more corpses were added.

Kola reported finding what he called a waxy fat mass at the bottom of the boreholes. We do not know the density of buried corpses when they are in that state. The boreholes also prove that the graves are a combination of such decomposed corpses and cremated remains. Since cremations started before gassings finished, corpses were being buried as cremains, which will be of a higher density than burying corpses.

That Reder's recollection does not precisely match Kola's findings, and is exaggerated, is to be expected. Multiple studies of witness estimation of size and numbers prove that it is often poor. Revisionist attempts to discredit witnesses never take into account studies of memory and recall.

[Nazgul]

When Kola speaks of layers he speaks of uniform findings across different drills at consistent height. That's what a layer is.

Time is essential in the assessment of this evidence. Recent layers cannot be compared to geological layers as you suggest, called strata. You may notice everyday or so dust collects in your house, you clean it up. leave it alone for hundreds of years it changes character. The same happens in your garden, eventually, what was above ground ends up below, dust becomes dirt. Understanding this with ancient ruins is how archaeology functions. Kola's investigation as interesting as it is, cannot separate itself from natural geological activity.

[bombsaway]

While I wait on revisionists to come up with better explanations for the ash layers than Nazgul's, I can cover some of the other issues


Assuming I have grave of 100 cubic meters, what is the highest amount of 40 kg bodies that grave could feasibly fit, accounting for inevitable space between bodies



what if you filled a grave and waited 2 months for bodies to decompose, how much volume loss would there be and additional space to add more bodies

ChatGPT

Thought for a couple of seconds
Estimating the potential volume loss in a grave due to decomposition after two months and determining how much additional space this might free up for more bodies involves understanding the decomposition process and its impact on the volume occupied by buried remains. Here's a comprehensive breakdown:

1. Understanding Decomposition Stages
Decomposition of a human body progresses through several stages, each contributing differently to volume reduction:

Fresh Stage (0-3 weeks):

Characteristics: Minimal decomposition; body maintains its original volume.
Volume Loss: Negligible.
Bloat Stage (2-6 weeks):

Characteristics: Bacterial activity produces gases, causing the body to bloat.
Volume Loss: Minimal to slight; possibly a slight increase in volume due to gas accumulation.
Active Decay (1-4 months):

Characteristics: Significant breakdown of soft tissues; bloated appearance subsides as tissues liquefy.
Volume Loss: Noticeable reduction in soft tissue volume as organs and muscles decompose.
Advanced Decay and Skeletonization (Several months to years):

Characteristics: Mostly bones remain; minimal soft tissue.
Volume Loss: Significant reduction, as only skeletal remains occupy space.
Given that your scenario involves a two-month period, the bodies would likely be in the Active Decay stage, where soft tissues have substantially decomposed, leading to notable volume loss.

2. Estimating Volume Loss Due to Decomposition
Factors Influencing Decomposition Rate and Volume Loss:
Environmental Conditions: Temperature, moisture, soil composition, and aeration affect decomposition speed.
Burial Practices: Use of coffins, depth of burial, and body handling can influence decomposition rates.
Body Composition: The ratio of soft tissues to bones affects how much volume is lost upon decomposition.
Approximate Volume Reduction:
While precise measurements can vary, for estimation purposes:

Soft Tissue vs. Bone Volume:

A human body primarily consists of soft tissues (~70%) and bones (~15%).
After two months, much of the soft tissue may have decomposed, leading to a reduction of approximately 60-70% of the original body volume.
Volume Loss Estimate:

Initial Volume per Body: 0.04 m³ (as previously calculated).
Remaining Volume After Decomposition: Approximately 30-40% of the original volume.
Volume Loss per Body: 60-70% of 0.04 m³ = 0.024 to 0.028 m³ per body.
3. Calculating Space Freed Up in the Grave
Initial Scenario:
Total Grave Volume: 100 m³
Volume per Body (Fresh): 0.04 m³
Number of Bodies Initially: 100 m³ × 60-70% (packing efficiency) / 0.04 m³ ≈ 1,500 to 1,750 bodies
After Two Months:
Volume Occupied by Decomposed Bodies:

Remaining Volume per Body: 0.012 to 0.016 m³
Total Volume After Decomposition: 1,500 to 1,750 bodies × 0.012 to 0.016 m³ ≈ 18 to 28 m³
Volume Freed Up:

Original Total Volume Occupied: 1,500 × 0.04 m³ = 60 m³ to 1,750 × 0.04 m³ = 70 m³
Freed Volume: 60-70 m³ - 18-28 m³ = 32 to 52 m³
4. Determining Additional Capacity
With the freed-up volume, you can potentially add more bodies to the grave. Here's how:

Additional Bodies Based on Freed Volume:
Freed Volume: 32 to 52 m³

Effective Packing Efficiency for New Bodies: Assuming similar 60-70% efficiency.

Volume Available for New Bodies: 32 to 52 m³ × 60-70% ≈ 19.2 to 36.4 m³

Number of Additional Bodies:

At 0.04 m³ per Body: 19.2 / 0.04 = 480 bodies
**To 36.4 / 0.04 = 910 bodies
Total Potential Capacity After Decomposition:
Initial Bodies: 1,500 to 1,750
Additional Bodies: 480 to 910
Total Possible: 1,980 to 2,660 bodies
5. Considerations and Caveats
Decomposition Rates Vary: Environmental and burial conditions can significantly influence how much decomposition occurs in two months.
Practical Limitations:
Regulations: Burial practices are subject to legal and ethical regulations which may limit the number of bodies per grave.
Health Concerns: Overcrowding graves can pose public health risks, even with decomposition.
Land Stability: High density of buried bodies might affect soil stability and the integrity of the burial site.
Space for Re-interment Practices: Some burial practices require space for coffin placement, embalming fluids, or other rituals, which may reduce effective space.
Non-Uniform Decomposition: Not all bodies decompose uniformly; variations can affect overall volume calculations.
6. Conclusion
After allowing two months for decomposition, you could potentially increase the capacity of a 100 m³ grave from approximately 1,500-1,750 bodies to around 1,980-2,660 bodies. This estimate is based on an assumed 60-70% packing efficiency and a significant volume reduction of each body due to decomposition.

However, it's crucial to emphasize that:

These calculations are theoretical: Actual decomposition rates and volume loss can vary widely.

What's key is the estimated volume loss of 60-70% after 2 months. This brings up the highest feasible capacity to Roberto's numbers. This is without considering there was additional grave space and the bodies weren't initially destroyed, which some witness and documentary evidence suggests. Maybe the AI is wrong, I dunno. I'm not qualified to judge these matters so I can't assess whether revisionists are right or wrong. What I do strongly believe in, is that AI is less biased on this topic than both revisionists and affirmers. I was careful to ask no leading questions.

[Callafangers]

1,000kg / 40 kg = 25 bodies per m3
At 60% packing efficiency = 15

bombsaway, this is why you don't ask ChatGPT (trained on general knowledge) such specialized questions (which most of us here are better trained on).

15 bodies per m3 is completely insane. A 1 meter x 1 meter cube could barely hold 15 infants, let alone 15 humans of varying size.

6-10 is the absolute maximum and even 7-8 becomes extreme and assumes no dirt whatsoever, very well-organized packing, etc.

[bombsaway]

1,000kg / 40 kg = 25 bodies per m3
At 60% packing efficiency = 15

bombsaway, this is why you don't ask ChatGPT (trained on general knowledge) such specialized questions (which most of us here are better trained on).

15 bodies per m3 is completely insane. A 1 meter x 1 meter cube could barely hold 15 infants, let alone 15 humans of varying size.

6-10 is the absolute maximum and even 7-8 becomes extreme and assumes no dirt whatsoever, very well-organized packing, etc.

I'm skeptical of this. Provan fit 8 people (with average weight of 33.25 kg) into a box of 21 by 21 inches (with an open top) https://mailstar.net/Provan-HI.pdf

Assuming 70 inch height (which is additional empty space clearly not filled), the box would be .5 cubic meters.

21 x 21 x 70 = 30870 cubic inches = .5 cubic meters

if we scale up the weight to 40 kg, we get 16 / 1.2 or 13.3333333333 bodies per cubic meter. But again there's clearly a lot of vertical space there since only 3 adults, so 13 is something of a minimum.

Basically your assertions are not believable to me (and shouldn't believable to anyone) because they're just talk, eg "15 bodies per m3 is completely insane", with no substantiation given. In my view you're tricking yourself into believing things. I don't want to single you out, Mattogno says the same thing, it's a pattern with revisionists tbh, but in this case you guys are failing clear empirical tests.

[Archie]

The thing is, in regards to #1, there are various explanations here like bodies being burnt, Kola not investigating all the graves (he says this explicitly in his study - there may have been more), and the physics of decomposing bodies.

That is so weak. You are trying to say that they had burned a bunch of the bodies beforehand? That is not and has never been the story. You, random guy on the internet, do not get to make up a new story out of nowhere.

Arad:

The opening of the mass graves in Belzec and the cremating of the corpses removed from them began with the interruption of the arrival of transports and of the killing activities there in mid-December 1942. At that time, there were about six hundred thousand corpses of murdered Jews in the pits of the camp.

You could assume perhaps that a few right at the end could be directly burned without burial or that there was very limited burning beforehand but it would be de minimus. It would not change the math much at all. Again, the story is that nearly all of the bodies were buried first. I will take the fact that you are desperately trying to change it as an admission that there is a problem.

"Kola not investigating all the graves" ?
Look the map. They took samples all over the camp the entire camp. Less than 10% had any human remains. Most of the samples showed "natural strata" with no disruption, i.e. there could not have been anything buried there. The bodies would have had to have been buried in the 5,490 sq meters of graves.

Decomposing bodies
The fact that Muehlenkamp had to resort to that to try to make the numbers work smacks of absolute desperation. He only brought it up as a possibility because he absolutely had to.

[bombsaway]

That is so weak. You are trying to say that they had burned a bunch of the bodies beforehand? That is not and has never been the story. You, random guy on the internet, do not get to make up a new story out of nowhere.

You're relying on secondary sources again. That's pretty weak and if I did that it would be against my stated principles.

Pfannensteil on Belzec

“From the inspection site the corpses were taken directly to deep mass
graves that had been dug in the vicinity of the extermination installation.
When the pits were rather full, the corpses were doused with gasoline – it
may have been some other flammable liquid – and were then lit. I could
only determine that the corpses burned just partly. Then another layer of
earth was thrown over the corpses and then fresh corpses were placed into
the same pit.”

"Kola not investigating all the graves" ?

There's some discussion here about Kola missing graves, with substantiation

Matching Kola's maps with his analysis of wartime air photographs, Alex Bay argues that Kola did not discover all of the Nazi mass graves at Belzec.[20] Bay’s demonstration is persuasive enough[21] to at least consider the possibility that the mass grave volume available at Belzec was somewhat higher than what becomes apparent from Kola’s estimates.

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... gy_10.html It's a possibility. Nevertheless not necessary to answer to your arguments, even the burning isn't necessary, because of information on decomposing bodies, which would clear up enough space.

Notice how there is dead silence about the ash layers except for Nazgul's attempt. Is Nazgul's explanation sensible to you?

[Archie]

The 21,310m3 that Kola identified as disturbed ground containing human remains, is the equivalent to 8.5 Olympic sized swimming pools.

This nonsense again. For 600,000 bodies, you'd need more like 75,000 cu meters, and that's if you planned out the graves carefully and efficiently. (Obviously not the case at Belzec).

That Reder's recollection does not precisely match Kola's findings, and is exaggerated, is to be expected. Multiple studies of witness estimation of size and numbers prove that it is often poor. Revisionist attempts to discredit witnesses never take into account studies of memory and recall.

Oh, yes. Reder "precision" was ever so slightly off. Get real. His grave area is over 13x too high. And even on a fundamental, qualitative level his description of the graves is TOTALLY WRONG. You can't get out of this by mumbling about muh witness studies.

[Archie]

I'm skeptical of this. Provan fit 8 people (with average weight of 33.25 kg) into a box of 21 by 21 inches (with an open top) https://mailstar.net/Provan-HI.pdf

Assuming 70 inch height (which is additional empty space clearly not filled), the box would be .5 cubic meters.

21 x 21 x 70 = 30870 cubic inches = .5 cubic meters

if we scale up the weight to 40 kg, we get 16 / 1.2 or 13.3333333333 bodies per cubic meter. But again there's clearly a lot of vertical space there since only 3 adults, so 13 is something of a minimum.

Basically your assertions are not believable to me (and shouldn't believable to anyone) because they're just talk, eg "15 bodies per m3 is completely insane", with no substantiation given. In my view you're tricking yourself into believing things. I don't want to single you out, Mattogno says the same thing, it's a pattern with revisionists tbh, but in this case you guys are failing clear empirical tests.

33 kg? Those are called children. Provan fit his own children in a box. Wow, what a game changer.

[bombsaway]

33 kg? Those are called children. Provan fit his own children in a box. Wow, what a game changer.

The key to determining volume is mass not age. Provan and the adults were probably significantly larger than the emaciated Polish Jews sent to Belzec.

[Archie]

What's key is the estimated volume loss of 60-70% after 2 months. This brings up the highest feasible capacity to Roberto's numbers. This is without considering there was additional grave space and the bodies weren't initially destroyed, which some witness and documentary evidence suggests. Maybe the AI is wrong, I dunno. I'm not qualified to judge these matters so I can't assess whether revisionists are right or wrong. What I do strongly believe in, is that AI is less biased on this topic than both revisionists and affirmers. I was careful to ask no leading questions.

This depends hugely on conditions. Hint: the level of moisture and other factors matter tremendously. Kola describes the unburnt bodies as being in a state of "wax-fat transformation." This is formation of adipocere via a process called saponification. This occurs in DAMP environments.

Adipocere is formed by the anaerobic bacterial hydrolysis of fat in tissue. The transformation of fats into adipocere occurs best in an environment that has high levels of moisture and an absence of oxygen, such as in wet ground or mud at the bottom of a lake or a sealed casket, and it can occur with both embalmed and untreated bodies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adipocere

I don't think we're dealing with optimal decomposition conditions here, bombs.

The unrestrained decomposition of a corpse involves the consecutive processes of autolysis, putrefaction and decay. Ideally, decomposition is completed within the regular resting time (15-25 years) and leads to the entire skeletalisation of the corpse. Adipocere, a greyish fatty substance formed during decomposition, is regarded as a spontaneous inhibition of post-mortem changes; it makes the corpse almost entirely resistant to decomposition and makes it impossible to use the same graves again. This creates problems for local governments with regard to the generally growing demand for burial ground. Apart from corpse-specific characteristics (e.g. sex, age, physique, cause of death), method of burial (e.g. material of the coffin, depth of grave, individual or mass grave, clothing) and time of burial, the conditions of the resting place (geology, topography, soil properties and frequency of use, air, water, and heat budget), in particular, have a special impact on adipocere formation. This study summarises the present knowledge on this phenomenon, combining results gained both in forensic medicine and in geosciences.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12883770/

I think your 70% decomposition is total fantasy and wishful thinking on your part. Maybe I could believe that in the Sahara.