The CODOH Revisionist Forum

bombsaway wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 2:53 am

Archie wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 2:52 am

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.

If they were emaciated (photos from 1942 actually don't suggest this) then you should adjust up your estimates for the fuel requirements. Emaciated bodies are harder to burn, so there's no way you would be achieving world record lows for the wood to body mass ratio in that case.

It's so obvious what you guys are doing. You take the most extreme assumptions in which ever direction is convenient for you. And then you stack these one on top of the other, all just to argue that it was not impossible. If you are wrong about any of these leaps, then it all falls apart. You need to right about the 20+ bodies per sq meter, the decomposition, 15 kg of wood per body, etc.

Jews were starving to death en masse in the ghettos. 5,000 a month were dying in the Warsaw Ghetto. Maybe per kg emaciated people are harder to burn per kg, but there's also less to burn, lower water mass.

Corpses liquifying also mean less space is wasted.

There's kinetics here that are too difficult to determine without replicating in an experimental setting. Not enough to disprove a narrative.

And still, absolute silence from you about the Ash layers. Nazgul's explanation is the best one?

bombsaway wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 3:23 am Jews were starving to death en masse in the ghettos. 5,000 a month were dying in the Warsaw Ghetto. Maybe per kg emaciated people are harder to burn per kg, but there's also less to burn, lower water mass.

Corpses liquifying also mean less space is wasted.

There's kinetics here that are too difficult to determine without replicating in an experimental setting. Not enough to disprove a narrative.

And still, absolute silence from you about the Ash layers. Nazgul's explanation is the best one?

What about the ash layers? What was the argument?

Archie wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 3:30 am

bombsaway wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 3:23 am Jews were starving to death en masse in the ghettos. 5,000 a month were dying in the Warsaw Ghetto. Maybe per kg emaciated people are harder to burn per kg, but there's also less to burn, lower water mass.

Corpses liquifying also mean less space is wasted.

There's kinetics here that are too difficult to determine without replicating in an experimental setting. Not enough to disprove a narrative.

And still, absolute silence from you about the Ash layers. Nazgul's explanation is the best one?

What about the ash layers? What was the argument?

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


And I gave more info here viewtopic.php?p=1373#p1373

Specifically you have to explain how graves like #5 came to exist
viewtopic.php?p=1373#p1373

bombsaway wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 3:52 am

Archie wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 3:30 am

bombsaway wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 3:23 am Jews were starving to death en masse in the ghettos. 5,000 a month were dying in the Warsaw Ghetto. Maybe per kg emaciated people are harder to burn per kg, but there's also less to burn, lower water mass.

Corpses liquifying also mean less space is wasted.

There's kinetics here that are too difficult to determine without replicating in an experimental setting. Not enough to disprove a narrative.

And still, absolute silence from you about the Ash layers. Nazgul's explanation is the best one?

What about the ash layers? What was the argument?

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


And I gave more info here viewtopic.php?p=1373#p1373

Specifically you have to explain how graves like #5 came to exist
viewtopic.php?p=1373#p1373

First, you don't get to skip straight to the ash. If you can't explain where they buried 600,000 bodies or how they burned them, then the story has already failed. Cremains are something like 5% yield vs the original bodies, so obviously it's way easier for you to do your "creative accounting" with 600,000 cremated vs 600,000 whole bodies. That's why you want to skip ahead to the ash. When you consider that these graves were not filled to brim with ash and that there would be considerable wood ash, there's nothing about any of this that compels us to accept 600,000 people were killed at this site. The ash that is there is completely consistent with a vastly smaller number of bodies. Just like at a lot of other non-extermination camps.

What I'm asking you to do is provide a plausible explanation for how graves like #5 came to exist. Be detailed

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.

Archie wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 2:20 am

bombsaway wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2024 7:06 am 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.

Revisionists do that all the time, come up with unevidenced theories about what happened. You are now about to contradict yourself, by posting evidence that corpses were cremated and never buried.

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.

There is no assumption.

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. This was in keeping with the efforts of the Sonderkommando 1005..."

That means for part of October, November and December 1942, no corpse was being buried. According to the transports list;

https://www.jewishgen.org/yizkor/belzec/bel004.html

October 105,764
November 89,070
December 13,250

That means at least 110,000 corpses were not buried and maybe over 200,000, depending on when it started in October. No revisionist, in their random guy on the internet calculations, has taken that into account.

"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.

Revisionists also avoid the issue of decomposition and pressure, increasing the numbers of corpses per m3. When additional factors that revisionists have failed to take into account are included, because they do not suit your desired belief, you cry that is smacking of desperation. Your argument is that since you cannot work out how so many corpses could be buried, therefore the witnesses lied about mass graves, is countered by my argument that because I can work out how so many corpses could be buried, therefore the witnesses told the truth about mass graves.

If only there was a way of working out whose argument is correct, that excludes biased opinion and belief.....

Nessie wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 8:19 am

Archie wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 2:20 am

bombsaway wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2024 7:06 am 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.

Revisionists do that all the time, come up with unevidenced theories about what happened. You are now about to contradict yourself, by posting evidence that corpses were cremated and never buried.

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.

There is no assumption.

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. This was in keeping with the efforts of the Sonderkommando 1005..."

That means for part of October, November and December 1942, no corpse was being buried. According to the transports list;

https://www.jewishgen.org/yizkor/belzec/bel004.html

October 105,764
November 89,070
December 13,250

That means at least 110,000 corpses were not buried and maybe over 200,000, depending on when it started in October. No revisionist, in their random guy on the internet calculations, has taken that into account.

"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.

Revisionists also avoid the issue of decomposition and pressure, increasing the numbers of corpses per m3. When additional factors that revisionists have failed to take into account are included, because they do not suit your desired belief, you cry that is smacking of desperation. Your argument is that since you cannot work out how so many corpses could be buried, therefore the witnesses lied about mass graves, is countered by my argument that because I can work out how so many corpses could be buried, therefore the witnesses told the truth about mass graves.

If only there was a way of working out whose argument is correct, that excludes biased opinion and belief.....

Most sources give a later timeline for digging up bodies. Also you can't assume that the order was put into effect that very second.

At any rate, you can only burn a few thousand bodies per day so your speculative scenario (which does not agree with Arad and other experts) is that there were over 100,000 unburied bodies. You imagine these were just in a big pile?

Archie wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 2:09 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 8:19 am

Archie wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 2:20 am

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.

Revisionists do that all the time, come up with unevidenced theories about what happened. You are now about to contradict yourself, by posting evidence that corpses were cremated and never buried.

Arad:


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.

There is no assumption.

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. This was in keeping with the efforts of the Sonderkommando 1005..."

That means for part of October, November and December 1942, no corpse was being buried. According to the transports list;

https://www.jewishgen.org/yizkor/belzec/bel004.html

October 105,764
November 89,070
December 13,250

That means at least 110,000 corpses were not buried and maybe over 200,000, depending on when it started in October. No revisionist, in their random guy on the internet calculations, has taken that into account.

"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.

Revisionists also avoid the issue of decomposition and pressure, increasing the numbers of corpses per m3. When additional factors that revisionists have failed to take into account are included, because they do not suit your desired belief, you cry that is smacking of desperation. Your argument is that since you cannot work out how so many corpses could be buried, therefore the witnesses lied about mass graves, is countered by my argument that because I can work out how so many corpses could be buried, therefore the witnesses told the truth about mass graves.

If only there was a way of working out whose argument is correct, that excludes biased opinion and belief.....

Most sources give a later timeline for digging up bodies.

Do they? Please show those sources.

Also you can't assume that the order was put into effect that very second.

You cannot assume the order was subject to a delay.

At any rate, you can only burn a few thousand bodies per day so your speculative scenario (which does not agree with Arad and other experts) is that there were over 100,000 unburied bodies. You imagine these were just in a big pile?

You said;

"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 then quote Arad, who contradicts you and I show you evidence of timelines. There is evidence that after October, corpses were no longer buried and went straight to the pyres. After transports stopped, cremations continued for months.

Kolas finds corroborate the pyres, because of the large areas of disturbed ground contained ash and cremated remains. Of course, it is not as much as you think it should be, but you are programmed to disbelieve. I would just point out that it one of the largest mass grave sites ever found.

bombsaway wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 2:19 am 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.

Let's break this down. Here is the experiment in-progress:


Provan's box is reportedly 43.8% the volume of 1m3. However:

At least two of the people in the box (but likely three, given the woman whose head/body are covered by the men) have their heads sticking out some 5-9 inches of the box (the woman perhaps much less, but this means she is especially small). Reportedly, the box also had more than one open side.

Moreover, to include a baby (as a doll) at all in this experiment is insane. For example, Sanning indicates:

...even an average growth rate of 0.2% per year between 1932 and 1939 seems somewhat high for the Polish-Jewish population.

p. 31, https://holocausthandbooks.com/wp-conte ... tdoeej.pdf

Thus, the inclusion of a baby in Provan's experiment overestimates the presence of babies in the 'Holocaust' by some 60-fold. This is in addition to the fact that the other children he includes were only aged 2-10 (with the 10-year-old seemingly towering over the much-smaller others). The average child should all be closer to at least the size of the 10-year-old, when factoring in 11, 12 year olds, and teenagers.

In Provan's experiment, we also have people actively cooperating to fit perfectly; this means the experiment at best represents the most extreme upper maximum, once adjusted for the problem with non-containment and disproportionate babies/children.

Here is a summary with some generous assumptions:


Ultimately, for a given volume, a reasonable packing density (assuming some very systematic yet still imperfect packing) in a 'Holocaust' context is around 8-9, with 10 or 11 being an unreasonable extreme (and higher than 12 being impossible).

As mentioned in the note under the table above, this still has not factored in other causes for ground disturbance which are known to have occurred (e.g. grave robbing, bombing, other burials). It also has not factored in certain other volume reduction constraints, such as the need for sloped side walls in graves (a constraint often missing from these types of grave volume calculations but which has been acknowledged by Muehlenkamp, etc).

And as also mentioned in the note under the table, if the Germans were burying bodies in a non-incriminating way, the packing density would be much lower, given no intentions to anticipate and maximize corpse concealment (bodies simply thrown in, cover layers between corpses as new ones arrive, etc.).

Thus, the ground disturbances identified align far more with the revisionist interpretation.

Callafangers wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 7:58 pm Ultimately, for a given volume, a reasonable packing density (assuming some very systematic yet still imperfect packing) in a 'Holocaust' context is around 8-9, with 10 or 11 being an unreasonable extreme (and higher than 12 being impossible).

Just to add, the argument can be made that the Jews were indeed 'skinnier' in the alleged context of the Holocaust. With that said, we might suggest that the subjects in the box, who are already fairly slim/healthy, were to each lose 25% of their body weight, this would increase the potential packing density. However, a 25% reduction in body weight doesn't lead to a proportional volume reduction because fat and muscle, which contribute to weight loss, are much more malleable than bone. These tissues compress and rearrange within a confined (packed) space, mitigating the volume change. Hence, while the body becomes lighter, its ability to fit or pack into a space changes far less dramatically. A reasonable adjustment might be in the range of up to 10% reduction in compressed volume, which suggests a feasible and systematic packing density of no more than 9-10.