Because of incompleteness I find the expert opinion dubious, but, I don't think the guy is lying or anything, just giving an opinion, and not wholly without reason.
Our guesses about the contents of the pits are just that, they are pure speculation.
Evidence is usually incomplete, and it's the job of historians to make a best guess, given the evidence that we have. From these two studies, there are definitely things we can say.
For example we can make rough assessments of the size of the graves, and of their current contents, which seem to be stratified with many and large crematory layers, of which little is wood ash.
Again, your speculation about wood ash is dubious in my opinion. I think it is arguable.
I'd like to see gpr studies done, and even with the current state of the site, I think aerial based gpr could be done. Spectrography would also be good, but we would need a really big gassifier and a huge diffuser.
Stubble wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2025 1:49 am
Again, your speculation about wood ash is dubious in my opinion. I think it is arguable.
The expert said of the ash: "A very small part comes from wood"
As you admit for Grave #5, when Kola is talking about ash layers that add up to almost a thousand cubic meters (per his measurements) he is not including wood ash in the described crematory layers.
Stubble wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2025 1:49 am
Again, your speculation about wood ash is dubious in my opinion. I think it is arguable.
The expert said of the ash: "A very small part comes from wood"
As you admit for Grave #5, when Kola is talking about ash layers that add up to almost a thousand cubic meters (per his measurements) he is not including wood ash in the described crematory layers.
Again, even the expert makes the caveat that he presents opinion about the rest on an examination of the 1.
I'll look more specifically at the dataset for 5. I'd be interested to know how he excludes wood ash. If I recall correctly this is easy for bone as ash will float and bone sinks. It could be the inverse. To determine one ash from another is a different ballgame all together.
Stubble wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2025 1:49 am
Again, your speculation about wood ash is dubious in my opinion. I think it is arguable.
The expert said of the ash: "A very small part comes from wood"
As you admit for Grave #5, when Kola is talking about ash layers that add up to almost a thousand cubic meters (per his measurements) he is not including wood ash in the described crematory layers.
Again, even the expert makes the caveat that he presents opinion about the rest on an examination of the 1.
I'll look more specifically at the dataset for 5. I'd be interested to know how he excludes wood ash. If I recall correctly this is easy for bone as ash will float and bone sinks. It could be the inverse. To determine one ash from another is a different ballgame all together.
These studies aren't definitive proof of the Holocaust in and of themselves. They could be more rigorous for sure. My argument is that for what they are, they support orthodoxy much better revisionism. Revisionists haven't yet offered plausible explanation or any explanation for what was found.
The expert said of the ash: "A very small part comes from wood"
As you admit for Grave #5, when Kola is talking about ash layers that add up to almost a thousand cubic meters (per his measurements) he is not including wood ash in the described crematory layers.
Again, even the expert makes the caveat that he presents opinion about the rest on an examination of the 1.
I'll look more specifically at the dataset for 5. I'd be interested to know how he excludes wood ash. If I recall correctly this is easy for bone as ash will float and bone sinks. It could be the inverse. To determine one ash from another is a different ballgame all together.
These studies aren't definitive proof of the Holocaust in and of themselves. They could be more rigorous for sure. My argument is that for what they are, they support orthodoxy much better revisionism. Revisionists haven't yet offered plausible explanation or any explanation for what was found.
I don't think that's a fair assessment, content is agreed, quantity is disputed. Without more data, a refutation of either position is not forthcoming.
So far as how internees ended up in a hole in the ground, there is dispute between revisionists and the orthodoxy. In absence of the alleged gas chamber, and with in its place a wooden long house style barracks, I'd call that one for the revisionist side of the coin.
If the eyewitnesses are to be believed, then the reality of the site should reflect their claims, which were fairly uniform and parallel. A detail here or there or maybe scope was in dispute, but, position of the gas chamber and its construction was 100% agreed. The wooden barracks doesn't fit that bill, even slightly.
Stubble wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2025 2:00 am
Again, even the expert makes the caveat that he presents opinion about the rest on an examination of the 1.
I'll look more specifically at the dataset for 5. I'd be interested to know how he excludes wood ash. If I recall correctly this is easy for bone as ash will float and bone sinks. It could be the inverse. To determine one ash from another is a different ballgame all together.
These studies aren't definitive proof of the Holocaust in and of themselves. They could be more rigorous for sure. My argument is that for what they are, they support orthodoxy much better revisionism. Revisionists haven't yet offered plausible explanation or any explanation for what was found.
I don't think that's a fair assessment, content is agreed, quantity is disputed. Without more data, a refutation of either position is not forthcoming.
So far as how internees ended up in a hole in the ground, there is dispute between revisionists and the orthodoxy. In absence of the alleged gas chamber, and with in its place a wooden long house style barracks, I'd call that one for the revisionist side of the coin.
If the eyewitnesses are to be believed, then the reality of the site should reflect their claims, which were fairly uniform and parallel. A detail here or there or maybe scope was in dispute, but, position of the gas chamber and its construction was 100% agreed. The wooden barracks doesn't fit that bill, even slightly.
We have quantity, described crematory layers that are meters thick, mixed with sand. If there's very little cremains that should be explained by revisionists, if there's a lot that could also be explained. Revisionists can explain either possibility. The problem with very little is the strangeness of diluting cremains to this extent, why it was done.
Let's assume a cover up, ask yourself, would you scatter the cremains to the wind, or inter them...
As an industrial component, bone ash would have been ideal for concrete, why not use it to make pillboxes?
Instead, no, inter it in layers, but, only the bones, not the ashes from the wood, no, just take the pulverized bone and put it in a series of central locations and leave it there.
That doesn't scream cover up to me. It does scream cremation however.
Another point to consider is the apparent incompleteness of the destruction of the remains. Apparently charred flesh was present. How in that case do you crush the bone? The bearings are going to get mired in flesh and not properly obliterate the remains.
I'm left with more questions than answers from the reports.
You would think an investigation would answer questions, not present new ones.
Hell, I'm told at treblinka we don't find cremains because they used them to build roads...
Stubble wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2025 3:29 am
Let's assume a cover up, ask yourself, would you scatter the cremains to the wind, or inter them...
As an industrial component, bone ash would have been ideal for concrete, why not use it to make pillboxes?
Instead, no, inter it in layers, but, only the bones, not the ashes from the wood, no, just take the pulverized bone and put it in a series of central locations and leave it there.
That doesn't scream cover up to me. It does scream cremation however.
Another point to consider is the apparent incompleteness of the destruction of the remains. Apparently charred flesh was present. How in that case do you crush the bone? The bearings are going to get mired in flesh and not properly obliterate the remains.
I'm left with more questions than answers from the reports.
You would think an investigation would answer questions, not present new ones.
Hell, I'm told at treblinka we don't find cremains because they used them to build roads...
You use hammers to destroy the bones.
At Treblinka the ashes were "scattered". This is what a report said there
With the assistance of an expert land surveyor and witnesses, I made an exact inspection of the terrain. According to the measurements, the area of the camp is approximately 13.45 hectares and had the shape of an irregular quadrilateral.[…] In the northwestern section of the area, the surface is covered for about 2 hectares by a mixture of ashes and sand. In this mixture, one finds countless human bones, often still covered with tissue remains, which are in a condition of decomposition. During the inspection, which I made with the assistance of an expert in forensic medicine, it was determined that the ashes are without any doubt of human origin (remains of cremated human bones). The examination of human skulls could discover no trace of« wounding. At a distance of some 100 m, there is now an unpleasant odor of burning and decay.
2 hectares is 20,000 square meters. I think you're minimizing the ash content. It's as if you're not dealing with many hundreds of cubic meters of ash/sand mixture, but a few dozen cubic meters. The different scales here are relevant. This points to more than few thousand people dying, and if it's only ashes of a few thousand people, why was it diluted to this extent.
Stubble wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2025 3:29 am
Let's assume a cover up, ask yourself, would you scatter the cremains to the wind, or inter them...
As an industrial component, bone ash would have been ideal for concrete, why not use it to make pillboxes?
Instead, no, inter it in layers, but, only the bones, not the ashes from the wood, no, just take the pulverized bone and put it in a series of central locations and leave it there.
That doesn't scream cover up to me. It does scream cremation however.
Another point to consider is the apparent incompleteness of the destruction of the remains. Apparently charred flesh was present. How in that case do you crush the bone? The bearings are going to get mired in flesh and not properly obliterate the remains.
I'm left with more questions than answers from the reports.
You would think an investigation would answer questions, not present new ones.
Hell, I'm told at treblinka we don't find cremains because they used them to build roads...
You use hammers to destroy the bones.
At Treblinka the ashes were "scattered". This is what a report said there
With the assistance of an expert land surveyor and witnesses, I made an exact inspection of the terrain. According to the measurements, the area of the camp is approximately 13.45 hectares and had the shape of an irregular quadrilateral.[…] In the northwestern section of the area, the surface is covered for about 2 hectares by a mixture of ashes and sand. In this mixture, one finds countless human bones, often still covered with tissue remains, which are in a condition of decomposition. During the inspection, which I made with the assistance of an expert in forensic medicine, it was determined that the ashes are without any doubt of human origin (remains of cremated human bones). The examination of human skulls could discover no trace of« wounding. At a distance of some 100 m, there is now an unpleasant odor of burning and decay.
2 hectares is 20,000 square meters. I think you're minimizing the ash content. It's as if you're not dealing with many hundreds of cubic meters of ash/sand mixture, but a few dozen cubic meters. The different scales here are relevant. This points to more than few thousand people dying, and if it's only ashes of a few thousand people, why was it diluted to this extent.
You use steel bearings in a tumbling mill to obliterate bones after cremation. I have heard the mallets and tin story, I suppose it could be true, then you still have meat to deal with, the situation is simply different, not negated.
You understand diluting the cremains makes them take up more space, right?
Stubble wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2025 3:29 am
Let's assume a cover up, ask yourself, would you scatter the cremains to the wind, or inter them...
As an industrial component, bone ash would have been ideal for concrete, why not use it to make pillboxes?
Instead, no, inter it in layers, but, only the bones, not the ashes from the wood, no, just take the pulverized bone and put it in a series of central locations and leave it there.
That doesn't scream cover up to me. It does scream cremation however.
Another point to consider is the apparent incompleteness of the destruction of the remains. Apparently charred flesh was present. How in that case do you crush the bone? The bearings are going to get mired in flesh and not properly obliterate the remains.
I'm left with more questions than answers from the reports.
You would think an investigation would answer questions, not present new ones.
Hell, I'm told at treblinka we don't find cremains because they used them to build roads...
You use hammers to destroy the bones.
At Treblinka the ashes were "scattered". This is what a report said there
With the assistance of an expert land surveyor and witnesses, I made an exact inspection of the terrain. According to the measurements, the area of the camp is approximately 13.45 hectares and had the shape of an irregular quadrilateral.[…] In the northwestern section of the area, the surface is covered for about 2 hectares by a mixture of ashes and sand. In this mixture, one finds countless human bones, often still covered with tissue remains, which are in a condition of decomposition. During the inspection, which I made with the assistance of an expert in forensic medicine, it was determined that the ashes are without any doubt of human origin (remains of cremated human bones). The examination of human skulls could discover no trace of« wounding. At a distance of some 100 m, there is now an unpleasant odor of burning and decay.
2 hectares is 20,000 square meters. I think you're minimizing the ash content. It's as if you're not dealing with many hundreds of cubic meters of ash/sand mixture, but a few dozen cubic meters. The different scales here are relevant. This points to more than few thousand people dying, and if it's only ashes of a few thousand people, why was it diluted to this extent.
You use steel bearings in a tumbling mill to obliterate bones after cremation. I have heard the mallets and tin story, I suppose it could be true, then you still have meat to deal with, the situation is simply different, not negated.
You understand diluting the cremains makes them take up more space, right?
The "meat" , which is heavily burnt, is fragmented as well and goes into the graves, hence descriptions like this
s. The small soft tissue parts of human bodies that are in the ash and not completely carbonized issue a smell that is caused by the decomposition process of the remains of human soft tissue parts. This smell is also caused by the fact that the soil is soaked by the masses of decomposing human corpses that were burned after having been extracted from the soil.
Yeah when you dilute the ash it makes it much much more difficult to measure. If not for the dilution, archeologists like Kola would have been able to provide a rough estimate of the deaths just by measuring the dimensions of the ash layers. This is my explanation for the dilution, what is yours? (for a far more massive dilution, since revisionists posit 10,000 deaths, not 400,000)
At Treblinka the ashes were "scattered". This is what a report said there
2 hectares is 20,000 square meters. I think you're minimizing the ash content. It's as if you're not dealing with many hundreds of cubic meters of ash/sand mixture, but a few dozen cubic meters. The different scales here are relevant. This points to more than few thousand people dying, and if it's only ashes of a few thousand people, why was it diluted to this extent.
You use steel bearings in a tumbling mill to obliterate bones after cremation. I have heard the mallets and tin story, I suppose it could be true, then you still have meat to deal with, the situation is simply different, not negated.
You understand diluting the cremains makes them take up more space, right?
The "meat" , which is heavily burnt, is fragmented as well and goes into the graves, hence descriptions like this
s. The small soft tissue parts of human bodies that are in the ash and not completely carbonized issue a smell that is caused by the decomposition process of the remains of human soft tissue parts. This smell is also caused by the fact that the soil is soaked by the masses of decomposing human corpses that were burned after having been extracted from the soil.
Yeah when you dilute the ash it makes it much much more difficult to measure. If not for the dilution, archeologists like Kola would have been able to provide a rough estimate of the deaths just by measuring the dimensions of the ash layers. This is my explanation for the dilution, what is yours? (for a far more massive dilution, since revisionists posit 10,000 deaths, not 400,000)
Judging by the incompleteness of cremation evidenced by the 'decaying soft tissue' I'd say the cremains were diluted for sanitation reasons. That's just a guess though. It may have been sop, again for sanitation reasons, although, if it is sop and you are a boot, ultimately you don't question why.
If you are finding hands and heads full of hair in the cremains, I question the 'heavily burnt' assertion.
Anybody have a German field manual that has the sop for corpse handling handy? It may settle this sand issue.
Judging by the incompleteness of cremation evidenced by the 'decaying soft tissue' I'd say the cremains were diluted for sanitation reasons. That's just a guess though. It may have been sop, again for sanitation reasons, although, if it is sop and you are a boot, ultimately you don't question why.
If you are finding hands and heads full of hair in the cremains, I question the 'heavily burnt' assertion.
Anybody have a German field manual that has the sop for corpse handling handy? It may settle this sand issue.
You're getting very close to explaining the whole story, which no revisionist had done yet. I give you credit for this actually.
I'll type it out for you, but we can say around 10,000 dead is plausible, and the reason the bodies were exhumed, was because of danger of ground water contamination? Someone else said this but it seems like you're taking the hygiene angle, I see no other explanation
Sop doesn't seem to be exhuming and destroying bodies.
It's known that millions of Soviet Pows died in German captivity in the first year of the war https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_ ... ers_of_war a death rate exceeding the alleged Holocaust. There's no evidence I've seen of any of these bodies being exhumed and destroyed. In many labor camps sop was was destroy and cremate bodies immediately, where such facilities existed.
The camps Belzec, Treblinka, sobibor, chelmno, seem to be unprecedented in this practice -- in terms of grave size larger graves haven't been found, none found containing ash layers of this size, none found where the practice was to exhume bodies then destroy them, mix with sand. It seems part of the revisionist narrative that what happened here was totally normal, not suspicious at all, but they can't support this with examples of other similar places.
bombsaway wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2025 4:23 pm
Sop doesn't seem to be exhuming and destroying bodies.
It's known that millions of Soviet Pows died in German captivity in the first year of the war https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_ ... ers_of_war a death rate exceeding the alleged Holocaust. There's no evidence I've seen of any of these bodies being exhumed and destroyed. In many labor camps sop was was destroy and cremate bodies immediately, where such facilities existed.
The camps Belzec, Treblinka, sobibor, chelmno, seem to be unprecedented in this practice -- in terms of grave size larger graves haven't been found, none found containing ash layers of this size, none found where the practice was to exhume bodies then destroy them, mix with sand. It seems part of the revisionist narrative that what happened here was totally normal, not suspicious at all, but they can't support this with examples of other similar places.
The disinterment at treblinka, sobibor and Auschwitz was to protect the water supply after a cross contamination at Auschwitz if I understand correctly. I don't know the water table at belzec, but assume a broad order covering the Operation Reinhardt camps as a whole. Again, if you are a boot, you don't ask questions.
Judging by the incompleteness of cremation evidenced by the 'decaying soft tissue' I'd say the cremains were diluted for sanitation reasons. That's just a guess though. It may have been sop, again for sanitation reasons, although, if it is sop and you are a boot, ultimately you don't question why.
If you are finding hands and heads full of hair in the cremains, I question the 'heavily burnt' assertion.
Anybody have a German field manual that has the sop for corpse handling handy? It may settle this sand issue.
You're getting very close to explaining the whole story, which no revisionist had done yet. I give you credit for this actually.
I'll type it out for you, but we can say around 10,000 dead is plausible, and the reason the bodies were exhumed, was because of danger of ground water contamination? Someone else said this but it seems like you're taking the hygiene angle, I see no other explanation
SOP is an if/then kind of deal. If cremation, then sand. If mass burial, then sand between layers.
If, then
I'm making an assumption about the sop and would like to review a body handling section of a field manual.
