The Kola Study - An Own Goal by Team Holocaust

[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.

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.

The story isn't based on gerstein or reder though, eg omit their testimonies and the story wouldn't change in any substantive way. There are still dozens of witness testimonies to draw on + archeological reports + deportation records and direct statements of extermination (eg Goebbels diary, "liquidation" by Globocnik) + intelligence reports like the one I quoted from Polish underground (from which the story "as such" was first established).

It has now been 6 days and still no comprehensive explanation of Kolas of findings about the ash and grave space from revisionists. I'll remind you of the thread title. If kolas findings were truly revisionist friendly you should have no trouble here, and there would be no reason to divert to critique of witness statements and secondary sources.

[Nessie]

......

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.

His estimations are no likely more accurate than revisionist ones. All he needs to do is show it is within the realms of possibility, that hundreds of thousands could be buried and then cremated, which he has done.

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).

The correct lens, is to assess witnesses based on studies of memory and recollection and to take into account they will make mistakes, under or over estimate, mix hearsay with what they saw, use figures of speech and hyperbole. Then, is their evidence corroborated? The answer is yes. So, the revisionist, let's-all-feel-mistrust-for-the Jews-and-don't-believe-them lens is not an accurate one.

[Archie]

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.

The story isn't based on gerstein or reder though, eg omit their testimonies and the story wouldn't change in any substantive way. There are still dozens of witness testimonies to draw on + archeological reports + deportation records and direct statements of extermination (eg Goebbels diary, "liquidation" by Globocnik) + intelligence reports like the one I quoted from Polish underground (from which the story "as such" was first established).

It has now been 6 days and still no comprehensive explanation of Kolas of findings about the ash and grave space from revisionists. I'll remind you of the thread title. If kolas findings were truly revisionist friendly you should have no trouble here, and there would be no reason to divert to critique of witness statements and secondary sources.

It was totally an own goal. That's why the only practical way to read about it is in Mattogno's books. The original book you claim proves the Holocaust isn't available at all. Isn't that odd?

"Nobody has responded to me, waaaaaah." Nobody responded to your non-argument. It's your usual thing where you fail to make any points and issue vague demands of everyone else with the intention of arbitrarily dismissing any potential reply.

[bombsaway]

It was totally an own goal. That's why the only practical way to read about it is in Mattogno's books. The original book you claim proves the Holocaust isn't available at all. Isn't that odd?

I can't answer that question, because the premise is false, it's available at 2 locations literally walking distance from where I live.

"Nobody has responded to me, waaaaaah." Nobody responded to your non-argument. It's your usual thing where you fail to make any points and issue vague demands of everyone else with the intention of arbitrarily dismissing any potential reply.

Basically the reason it's important to explain something within a given framework is to show that it doesn't contradict that framework. IE if Kola's studies showed no major graves or ground disturbance, orthodoxy would have to explain why and if they couldn't, modify their assertions about mass burial having taken place at Belzec.

It's not my job to offer a cogent explanation of the grave space and ash layers from a revisionist perspective. I don't think there is a reasonable one.

It seems you may have trouble answering even yes / no questions. Is there a revisionist explanation?

It has now been almost a week since I asked for one.

I have no intention "of arbitrarily dismissing any potential reply." If you can offer a reasonable explanation I'll cede this point.

[Nazgul]

It's not my job to offer a cogent explanation of the grave space and ash layers from a revisionist perspective. I don't think there is a reasonable one.

Of course you do not. You, like Nessie, appear research nothing. You are aware there were many labour camps for Jews, in the Belzec region.
Due to delays and cramped conditions, many deportees died in transit. On 18 August 1942, Waffen SS officer Kurt Gerstein had witnessed at Belzec the arrival of "45 wagons with 6,700 people, of whom 1,450 were already dead on arrival". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_trains

Guess these unfortunates, who perished in transit, were sorta burned and buried.