The Kola Study - An Own Goal by Team Holocaust

[Archie]

Notice that if these jokers find one stray testimony saying something they find useful for their argument du jour they immediately latch onto it and take it as absolute gospel, even if it's not commonly accepted. But their usual line is that "witnesses are unreliable on dates." They like to say that because it gives them latitude to assume that Hoess, for example, got all of his dates massively wrong yet is somehow still a reliable witness. They just argue whatever is convenient for them in the moment. If it were the case that they needed the burnings to start later, they would be arguing for January as the start.

[Archie]

As an aside, the timing is also important for the issue I raised in this other thread.

https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=78

[Nessie]

Notice that if these jokers find one stray testimony saying something they find useful for their argument du jour they immediately latch onto it and take it as absolute gospel, even if it's not commonly accepted.

Actually, a simple search finds that historians disagree when the cremations start and I pointed out that if they started in October, November or December, what that would mean to the numbers buried. No one single date or number buried has been latched onto, and your claim is false.

But their usual line is that "witnesses are unreliable on dates." They like to say that because it gives them latitude to assume that Hoess, for example, got all of his dates massively wrong yet is somehow still a reliable witness. They just argue whatever is convenient for them in the moment. If it were the case that they needed the burnings to start later, they would be arguing for January as the start.

It is a proven fact that witnesses are unreliable about dates.

https://www.open.edu/openlearn/mod/ouco ... &section=1

"Our ability to provide the correct date for an event may also be poor. Research testing participants’ ability to date episodes they had personally experienced showed that accuracy in dating was dependent on how long ago the episode occurred (known as the retention interval), and that accuracy decreased rapidly as the retention interval lengthened. When asked about experiences that had taken place in the previous week, participants tended to date accurately 85–90% of the time. For experiences that occurred over three months ago, however, accurate dating dropped to 15–20% (Thompson et al., 1996)."

When Gley was interviewed in 1961 and 1963, his chances of accurately remembering the date cremations started, according to the study above, was 15-20% and since that was a gap of months, likely lower.

That annoys you, but it explains why revisionists cannot produce accurate theories about the graves and cremations, because they cannot get accurate data to base the theories on. Without those theories, revisionists have nothing, as they cannot produce archaeological or witness evidence to prove no mass graves and creamtions.

[Archie]

Notice that if these jokers find one stray testimony saying something they find useful for their argument du jour they immediately latch onto it and take it as absolute gospel, even if it's not commonly accepted.

Actually, a simple search finds that historians disagree when the cremations start and I pointed out that if they started in October, November or December, what that would mean to the numbers buried. No one single date or number buried has been latched onto, and your claim is false.

But their usual line is that "witnesses are unreliable on dates." They like to say that because it gives them latitude to assume that Hoess, for example, got all of his dates massively wrong yet is somehow still a reliable witness. They just argue whatever is convenient for them in the moment. If it were the case that they needed the burnings to start later, they would be arguing for January as the start.

It is a proven fact that witnesses are unreliable about dates.

https://www.open.edu/openlearn/mod/ouco ... &section=1

"Our ability to provide the correct date for an event may also be poor. Research testing participants’ ability to date episodes they had personally experienced showed that accuracy in dating was dependent on how long ago the episode occurred (known as the retention interval), and that accuracy decreased rapidly as the retention interval lengthened. When asked about experiences that had taken place in the previous week, participants tended to date accurately 85–90% of the time. For experiences that occurred over three months ago, however, accurate dating dropped to 15–20% (Thompson et al., 1996)."

When Gley was interviewed in 1961 and 1963, his chances of accurately remembering the date cremations started, according to the study above, was 15-20% and since that was a gap of months, likely lower.

That annoys you, but it explains why revisionists cannot produce accurate theories about the graves and cremations, because they cannot get accurate data to base the theories on. Without those theories, revisionists have nothing, as they cannot produce archaeological or witness evidence to prove no mass graves and creamtions.

The source you provided doesn't even say that cremations began in October. You are simply hoping for that to be true because you are pushing this idiosyncratic theory (that only you and bombs believe) that some vastly lower number of bodies were buried than has traditionally been assumed. (You can't even explain what they did with these bodies while they were in queue to be cremated). Again, I will take that as a concession on your part that the 600,000 figure cannot be defended.

[Nessie]

Notice that if these jokers find one stray testimony saying something they find useful for their argument du jour they immediately latch onto it and take it as absolute gospel, even if it's not commonly accepted.

Actually, a simple search finds that historians disagree when the cremations start and I pointed out that if they started in October, November or December, what that would mean to the numbers buried. No one single date or number buried has been latched onto, and your claim is false.

But their usual line is that "witnesses are unreliable on dates." They like to say that because it gives them latitude to assume that Hoess, for example, got all of his dates massively wrong yet is somehow still a reliable witness. They just argue whatever is convenient for them in the moment. If it were the case that they needed the burnings to start later, they would be arguing for January as the start.

It is a proven fact that witnesses are unreliable about dates.

https://www.open.edu/openlearn/mod/ouco ... &section=1

"Our ability to provide the correct date for an event may also be poor. Research testing participants’ ability to date episodes they had personally experienced showed that accuracy in dating was dependent on how long ago the episode occurred (known as the retention interval), and that accuracy decreased rapidly as the retention interval lengthened. When asked about experiences that had taken place in the previous week, participants tended to date accurately 85–90% of the time. For experiences that occurred over three months ago, however, accurate dating dropped to 15–20% (Thompson et al., 1996)."

When Gley was interviewed in 1961 and 1963, his chances of accurately remembering the date cremations started, according to the study above, was 15-20% and since that was a gap of months, likely lower.

That annoys you, but it explains why revisionists cannot produce accurate theories about the graves and cremations, because they cannot get accurate data to base the theories on. Without those theories, revisionists have nothing, as they cannot produce archaeological or witness evidence to prove no mass graves and creamtions.

The source you provided doesn't even say that cremations began in October.

USHMM said it began in October. Here it is again, so you cannot dispute it;

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/ ... cle/belzec

"In October 1942, on orders from Odilo Globocnik, camp personnel deployed Jewish forced laborers from various locations in Lublin District to exhume the mass graves at Belzec. They ordered the forced laborers to burn the bodies on open-air “ovens” made from rail track."

You are simply hoping for that to be true because you are pushing this idiosyncratic theory (that only you and bombs believe) that some vastly lower number of bodies were buried than has traditionally been assumed.

The real point I am making, that you are dodging, is that the evidence is inconsistent and inconclusive as to how many corpses were buried and cremated.

(You can't even explain what they did with these bodies while they were in queue to be cremated).

I said that they would have gone straight from the gas chambers to the pyres. There would not need to be a queue.

Again, I will take that as a concession on your part that the 600,000 figure cannot be defended.

USHMM (same link as used above) states, "German authorities had murdered approximately 434,500 Jews at the site."

The camp's museum site states, "about 450 thousand people were murdered there".

https://www.belzec.eu/en/history/camp_history/2

So, no, I do not defend the 600,000 figure. It is at the top of end of a range, which again, means revisionist theories do not have reliable data to work off, so they cannot be assumed to be accurate. With inaccurate theories about burials and cremations and no witnesses or archaeological evidence, revisionism has little to contribute.

[Archie]

Actually, a simple search finds that historians disagree when the cremations start and I pointed out that if they started in October, November or December, what that would mean to the numbers buried. No one single date or number buried has been latched onto, and your claim is false.



It is a proven fact that witnesses are unreliable about dates.

https://www.open.edu/openlearn/mod/ouco ... &section=1

"Our ability to provide the correct date for an event may also be poor. Research testing participants’ ability to date episodes they had personally experienced showed that accuracy in dating was dependent on how long ago the episode occurred (known as the retention interval), and that accuracy decreased rapidly as the retention interval lengthened. When asked about experiences that had taken place in the previous week, participants tended to date accurately 85–90% of the time. For experiences that occurred over three months ago, however, accurate dating dropped to 15–20% (Thompson et al., 1996)."

When Gley was interviewed in 1961 and 1963, his chances of accurately remembering the date cremations started, according to the study above, was 15-20% and since that was a gap of months, likely lower.

That annoys you, but it explains why revisionists cannot produce accurate theories about the graves and cremations, because they cannot get accurate data to base the theories on. Without those theories, revisionists have nothing, as they cannot produce archaeological or witness evidence to prove no mass graves and creamtions.

The source you provided doesn't even say that cremations began in October.

USHMM said it began in October. Here it is again, so you cannot dispute it;

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/ ... cle/belzec

"In October 1942, on orders from Odilo Globocnik, camp personnel deployed Jewish forced laborers from various locations in Lublin District to exhume the mass graves at Belzec. They ordered the forced laborers to burn the bodies on open-air “ovens” made from rail track."

You are simply hoping for that to be true because you are pushing this idiosyncratic theory (that only you and bombs believe) that some vastly lower number of bodies were buried than has traditionally been assumed.

The real point I am making, that you are dodging, is that the evidence is inconsistent and inconclusive as to how many corpses were buried and cremated.

(You can't even explain what they did with these bodies while they were in queue to be cremated).

I said that they would have gone straight from the gas chambers to the pyres. There would not need to be a queue.

Again, I will take that as a concession on your part that the 600,000 figure cannot be defended.

USHMM (same link as used above) states, "German authorities had murdered approximately 434,500 Jews at the site."

The camp's museum site states, "about 450 thousand people were murdered there".

https://www.belzec.eu/en/history/camp_history/2

So, no, I do not defend the 600,000 figure. It is at the top of end of a range, which again, means revisionist theories do not have reliable data to work off, so they cannot be assumed to be accurate. With inaccurate theories about burials and cremations and no witnesses or archaeological evidence, revisionism has little to contribute.

I can and do dispute it. To repeat myself, that quote from USHMM says nothing about how many cremations or exhumations were performed "in October," if any. And it is unsourced.

You claim that 106K were deported and gassed in October and that these were unburied. Implicitly you assume "in October" equates to "all of October." Even if these hypothetical October cremations started on Oct 1, that would require 3,400 cremations per day on average. Any less and you would have a queue of bodies piled up. Arithmetic.

Go back and read the quotes I shared from Arad's book. Gley claimed the cremation capacity was 2,000/day and that the cremations and exhumations started later. And the Polish investigating committee claimed that the magically efficient roaster method was not developed right away. So then not only do most sources give a later timeline, they also suggest the efficiency was low at the beginning. None of that fits your speculation about 200,000 bodies being instantly burned in October and November.

[bombsaway]

The source you provided doesn't even say that cremations began in October. You are simply hoping for that to be true because you are pushing this idiosyncratic theory (that only you and bombs believe) that some vastly lower number of bodies were buried than has traditionally been assumed. (You can't even explain what they did with these bodies while they were in queue to be cremated). Again, I will take that as a concession on your part that the 600,000 figure cannot be defended.

You don't need to lump me in w Nessie here, cuz I never actually stated this. If you're critiquing Nessie that's a separate question than was there grave space for 400 - 600,000 Jews at Belzec?

I don't feel the need to repeat myself so you can go back and look through all my posts.

Needless to say there hasn't been a response to most of my arguments, and it's now been 4 days since I raised my point about the ash layers, which has gone unanswered except for Nazgul who said they and the graves were the result of "bombing". This thread is about the "own goal" of the Kola study, yet there has been a refusal to actually grapple with what's in the study. My position is it is incompatible with revisionism, but compatible with orthodoxy. Once you start engaging with the actual study, and answering the kind of questions you have posed (how could this be? essentially) and I have answered, I think you'll see this to be the case.

[curioussoul]

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.

Much of the asserted grave volume is simply conjectural. For example, Kola gave exact dimensions for a supposed mass grave identified by merely a single borehole. That's obviously nonsensical, but highlights the pseudoscientific nature of Kola's research. Regarding the decomposition of the bodies, revisionists have made exact calculations on this topic and came to the conclusion that it would've had only marginal impact on the overall plausibility (or lack thereof) of the official cremation thesis.

In addition, there is a very logical explanation for the presence of mass graves, namely the death rate on the trains and from other causes within the camp. Thousands would have had to have been buried within the vicinity of the camp without there ever having been a mass extermination operation going on in Belzec.

There's also the massive problem of unearthing alleged gassing victims in the dead of winter and in frozen soil. This is particularly true for Belzec, where the unearthing is supposed to have begun around December and continued into January and February. It simply would not have been possible without specialized machinery and work crews, explosives or the like, and that's not even mentioning the cremations themselves. What impact does the temperature have on the possibility of outdoor cremations?

[curioussoul]

Needless to say there hasn't been a response to most of my arguments, and it's now been 4 days since I raised my point about the ash layers, which has gone unanswered except for Nazgul who said they and the graves were the result of "bombing". This thread is about the "own goal" of the Kola study, yet there has been a refusal to actually grapple with what's in the study. My position is it is incompatible with revisionism, but compatible with orthodoxy. Once you start engaging with the actual study, and answering the kind of questions you have posed (how could this be? essentially) and I have answered, I think you'll see this to be the case.

Nonsense. There would have been tens of thousands of dead bodies, even if we only use Dieter Pohl's estimation of the death tolls for the train rides to Belzec. You don't need a secret mass extermination operation for there to be lots and lots of bodies to bury at these camps. This is why the AR camps is such a weak point for the orthodoxy. There simply is no serious way to explain where the bodies went, at least not in a way which conforms to physical reality or to the official story.

[bombsaway]

Needless to say there hasn't been a response to most of my arguments, and it's now been 4 days since I raised my point about the ash layers, which has gone unanswered except for Nazgul who said they and the graves were the result of "bombing". This thread is about the "own goal" of the Kola study, yet there has been a refusal to actually grapple with what's in the study. My position is it is incompatible with revisionism, but compatible with orthodoxy. Once you start engaging with the actual study, and answering the kind of questions you have posed (how could this be? essentially) and I have answered, I think you'll see this to be the case.

Nonsense. There would have been tens of thousands of dead bodies, even if we only use Dieter Pohl's estimation of the death tolls for the train rides to Belzec. You don't need a secret mass extermination operation for there to be lots and lots of bodies to bury at these camps. This is why the AR camps is such a weak point for the orthodoxy. There simply is no serious way to explain where the bodies went, at least not in a way which conforms to physical reality or to the official story.

What happened to the bodies is evident in the descriptions like Grave #5.

So specifically, using #5 as reference

"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"

My explanation (the kind I would like to see from you) would be this:

I would say graves were dug this large because they had to accommodate a large volume of bodies. Thousands were being killed every day that had to be buried. Ash of these individuals occupies far less volume. The bodies were brought out of the graves, then cremated in bunches of bodies at a time. Each time a group of bodies was destroyed the ashes were put back in the grave, this is where the layers come from. The bodies were destroyed for the purposes of concealing the extent of the killing operation.

We can see at the bottom a layer one meter thick. If the area of the pit was roughly 300 meters, that would constitute 300 cubic meters of ash mixture. Given an average yield of 3 liters of cremated remains per person, this would constitute 100,000 people if it was 100% ash. It wasn't pure ash though, it was mixed withs sand. At 1% purity it would contain the ashes of 1000 people. As far as I can tell in my research the alleged extermination camps are the only mass graves ever reported where ash was mixed with sand. The question of why here and not anywhere else is a pertinent one. I would speculate that it was done again to conceal or confuse the extent of the killing operation.

What's your explanation for what Kola found? Don't just say he found some ashes of people that died on the train, give me a convincing story about how they came to be arranged in these massive graves in layers. I don't think there is one, which is why I say the study, if literally true, is damning to revisionists.

I think the only plausible explanation, from a revisionist perspective, is that Kola is lying. The people that own the site know what is down there is not indicative of mass burial and body destruction, and they brought Kola in on the conspiracy.

If this is true, to call the study an "own goal" is delusional.

[Archie]

Lol at bombs and his "layers." I honestly have no idea why he thinks repeating "layers" is some brilliant point. He complains that no one has responded when he's failed to make an argument. Meanwhile he has not addressed various points, like why Reder hallucinated 30 enormous, uniformly rectangular graves that we know for a fact did not exist as described.

[bombsaway]

Lol at bombs and his "layers." I honestly have no idea why he thinks repeating "layers" is some brilliant point. He complains that no one has responded when he's failed to make an argument. Meanwhile he has not addressed various points, like why Reder hallucinated 30 enormous, uniformly rectangular graves that we know for a fact did not exist as described.

I think it's very possible Reder was lying, creating uniform graves in order to justify a death toll (uniform graves make it easier to calculate) he legitimately believed in. Or maybe he hated the Nazis for killing his family and wanted to disparage them. Or maybe it was self-deception on his part, he wanted to believe in his death toll so he justified it to himiself. Your hypothesis, which is that this is part of some much larger confabulation is merely one possibility among many. That's why it's not rigorous proof revisionism is correct. The "mistake" Reder made no less disproves the extermination story than the mistakes witnesses on the Titanic made disprove that it sank. Witnesses are unreliable.

I'm not making an argument so much as challenging you to provide a reasonable narrative, just like you asked me to. I guess the argument now is that revisionists can't answer to a supposedly simple, elementary challenge, unless you're saying the Nazgul's explanation is the best one. Then I will address that. An enormous critique of revisionism is what you are doing is not proper history (because you're not actually presenting a coherent defensible narrative) and that's just being proven right once again here. You don't even have to evidence your narrative in this case, just provide something that makes sense and would be reasonable practice (eg the Nazis doing some kind of art project and depositing ashes from all over Poland into pits at belzec wouldnt really fly )

Explain how graves like number 5 came into being, just like I did above.

[Nessie]

....

USHMM (same link as used above) states, "German authorities had murdered approximately 434,500 Jews at the site."

The camp's museum site states, "about 450 thousand people were murdered there".

https://www.belzec.eu/en/history/camp_history/2

So, no, I do not defend the 600,000 figure. It is at the top of end of a range, which again, means revisionist theories do not have reliable data to work off, so they cannot be assumed to be accurate. With inaccurate theories about burials and cremations and no witnesses or archaeological evidence, revisionism has little to contribute.

I can and do dispute it. To repeat myself, that quote from USHMM says nothing about how many cremations or exhumations were performed "in October," if any. And it is unsourced.

You claim that 106K were deported and gassed in October and that these were unburied. Implicitly you assume "in October" equates to "all of October." Even if these hypothetical October cremations started on Oct 1, that would require 3,400 cremations per day on average. Any less and you would have a queue of bodies piled up. Arithmetic.

Go back and read the quotes I shared from Arad's book. Gley claimed the cremation capacity was 2,000/day and that the cremations and exhumations started later. And the Polish investigating committee claimed that the magically efficient roaster method was not developed right away. So then not only do most sources give a later timeline, they also suggest the efficiency was low at the beginning. None of that fits your speculation about 200,000 bodies being instantly burned in October and November.

You are missing the point, which is clearly deliberate.

YOU DO NOT HAVE ACCURATE AND CONSISTENT DATA TO BASE YOUR THEORIES ON.

You do not know for sure how many corpses are buried and when cremations started. You go with the evidence that suits you the best, as you craft the reasons as to why you think it was impossible to kill, bury and cremate so many people. You do that, because you cannot do what is normally done to establish the history of a place, which is to gather evidence from people who were there, contemporaneous documents and archaeological surveys.

Revisionism is not history as it is normally investigated.

[Archie]

Lol at bombs and his "layers." I honestly have no idea why he thinks repeating "layers" is some brilliant point. He complains that no one has responded when he's failed to make an argument. Meanwhile he has not addressed various points, like why Reder hallucinated 30 enormous, uniformly rectangular graves that we know for a fact did not exist as described.

I think it's very possible Reder was lying, creating uniform graves in order to justify a death toll (uniform graves make it easier to calculate) he legitimately believed in. Or maybe he hated the Nazis for killing his family and wanted to disparage them. Or maybe it was self-deception on his part, he wanted to believe in his death toll so he justified it to himiself. Your hypothesis, which is that this is part of some much larger confabulation is merely one possibility among many. That's why it's not rigorous proof revisionism is correct. The "mistake" Reder made no less disproves the extermination story than the mistakes witnesses on the Titanic made disprove that it sank. Witnesses are unreliable.

I'm not making an argument so much as challenging you to provide a reasonable narrative, just like you asked me to. I guess the argument now is that revisionists can't answer to a supposedly simple, elementary challenge, unless you're saying the Nazgul's explanation is the best one. Then I will address that. An enormous critique of revisionism is what you are doing is not proper history (because you're not actually presenting a coherent defensible narrative) and that's just being proven right once again here. You don't even have to evidence your narrative in this case, just provide something that makes sense and would be reasonable practice (eg the Nazis doing some kind of art project and depositing ashes from all over Poland into pits at belzec wouldnt really fly )

Explain how graves like number 5 came into being, just like I did above.

Surprising concession here. But you're not thinking through the implications.

If the story is based to a very large extent on Gerstein and Reder and their statements are demonstrably false on major points, then we have no reason to believe it.

[Archie]

....

USHMM (same link as used above) states, "German authorities had murdered approximately 434,500 Jews at the site."

The camp's museum site states, "about 450 thousand people were murdered there".

https://www.belzec.eu/en/history/camp_history/2

So, no, I do not defend the 600,000 figure. It is at the top of end of a range, which again, means revisionist theories do not have reliable data to work off, so they cannot be assumed to be accurate. With inaccurate theories about burials and cremations and no witnesses or archaeological evidence, revisionism has little to contribute.

I can and do dispute it. To repeat myself, that quote from USHMM says nothing about how many cremations or exhumations were performed "in October," if any. And it is unsourced.

You claim that 106K were deported and gassed in October and that these were unburied. Implicitly you assume "in October" equates to "all of October." Even if these hypothetical October cremations started on Oct 1, that would require 3,400 cremations per day on average. Any less and you would have a queue of bodies piled up. Arithmetic.

Go back and read the quotes I shared from Arad's book. Gley claimed the cremation capacity was 2,000/day and that the cremations and exhumations started later. And the Polish investigating committee claimed that the magically efficient roaster method was not developed right away. So then not only do most sources give a later timeline, they also suggest the efficiency was low at the beginning. None of that fits your speculation about 200,000 bodies being instantly burned in October and November.

You are missing the point, which is clearly deliberate.

YOU DO NOT HAVE ACCURATE AND CONSISTENT DATA TO BASE YOUR THEORIES ON.

You do not know for sure how many corpses are buried and when cremations started. You go with the evidence that suits you the best, as you craft the reasons as to why you think it was impossible to kill, bury and cremate so many people. You do that, because you cannot do what is normally done to establish the history of a place, which is to gather evidence from people who were there, contemporaneous documents and archaeological surveys.

Revisionism is not history as it is normally investigated.

Actually that is exactly what Muehlenkamp does with his calculations. He sets the assumptions to be whatever he needs them to be to force the numbers to work out without no regard for common sense. All in order to show that if the stars were all aligned it might have been possible to burn, disinter, and burn all these bodies.

I don't need to do that. The original stories simply do not reflect physical reality and this is immediately obvious the very second you start thinking about them through that lens (as opposed to let's-all-feel-sad-for-the-poor-jews-story-time lens).