ELI5

[bombsaway]

But who said that Kola found ashes in all the soil samples he prospected? You assume that the alleged amount of disturbed soil was filled entirely with bodies and then ashes. Some AI research considers that 35,000 m3 would be needed to accommodate 500,000 people, considering 0.07 cubic meters per person, but forget that, the issue is samples containing ashes and Kola's, of the 2,227 samples, only 6 had ashes, 3% of the disturbed soil samples

Exterminationists love to extrapolate findings

This is blatantly false. Blatantly. I even pointed it out to you here. Seems you understood the post back then, but have since forgotten, retreating to debunked talking points that frankly expose Rudolf, Mattogno and co as incompetent researchers.

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=107&start=225

At a minimum 28/33 graves have ashes, most of these have ash layers, meaning the ashes distributed across entire grave.

It's also true that no revisionist has offered an explanation for why the exhumed bodies were destroyed, ashes mixed with sand, and then deposited back into the graves.

[TlsMS93]

But who said that Kola found ashes in all the soil samples he prospected? You assume that the alleged amount of disturbed soil was filled entirely with bodies and then ashes. Some AI research considers that 35,000 m3 would be needed to accommodate 500,000 people, considering 0.07 cubic meters per person, but forget that, the issue is samples containing ashes and Kola's, of the 2,227 samples, only 6 had ashes, 3% of the disturbed soil samples

Exterminationists love to extrapolate findings

This is blatantly false. Blatantly. I even pointed it out to you here. Seems you understood the post back then, but have since forgotten, retreating to debunked talking points that frankly expose Rudolf, Mattogno and co as incompetent researchers.

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=107&start=225

At a minimum 28/33 graves have ashes, most of these have ash layers, meaning the ashes distributed across entire grave.

It's also true that no revisionist has offered an explanation for why the exhumed bodies were destroyed, ashes mixed with sand, and then deposited back into the graves.

4.5. The Ash

The incineration of a corpse in a crematorium oven yields about 5% of ash having a specific gravity of 0.5.267 For a cremation in the open air the quantity of ash goes up considerably. The wood burnt produces about 8% of ash with a specific gravity of 0.34.266 Therefore, the alleged 600,000 victims would have left behind (600,000×45×0.05=) 1,350,000 kg or 1,350 tons of ash, with a
volume of (1,350÷0.5=) 2,700 cubic meters, whereas the wood ash would have amounted to (96,000×0.08=) 7,680 tons, corresponding to about 22,600 cubic meters. Altogether then, some (1,350+7,680=) 9,030 tons or (2,700+ 22,600=) 25,300 cubic meters of ash would have resulted from the enormous incinerations. However, the total volume of the graves identified by Kola is 21,310 cubic meters. Thus, even if all of the graves had been full to the brim with ash unmixed with sand, there would have been (25,300–21,310=) about 4,000 cubic meters of pure ash left over, enough to fill some 290 trucks or 60 railroad. But the graphs of the analyses of the 137 drill cores presented by Kola show that the ash in the graves is normally intermingled with sand, that in more than half of the samples the layer of ash and sand is extremely thin, and that at times the ash is close to being completely absent. Furthermore, out of the 236 samples, 99 are irrelevant, and among the 137 relevant ones
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. Finally – and Kola does not state this explicitly – besides the sand, the human remains are intermingled also with animal remains: “These diggings produced also a large amount of human bones, which were partly intermingled with remains of animal origin.”
From all this it becomes obvious that the amount of ash actually located in the graves is absolutely incompatible with the cremation of 600,000 corpses.

Carlo Mattogno - Belzec - In propaganda, testimonies, archeological research, and history

During his work he elaborates more on the contents of these graves, arguing that their contents are almost devoid of ash to have any factor to consider, perhaps that is why Rudolf stated that few graves actually contained ash to be considered in the first place, even in view of the excavations of local residents that brought to light remains of ash that ended up in places that perhaps did not previously have it.

Exterminationists only take into account human ashes but forget about wood ashes, which generate even more than a human body given the need for several times the human body in wood in cremations.

[Nessie]

I’ve been through the Kola thread multiple times and don’t see any kind of response to the questions of: 1) how many bodies revisionists think are buried there; and 2) how those bodies got there, if not by a mass gassing operation.

I’m not asking for proofs so much as for your theories. Because it seems like there are more bodies than what a transit camp would warrant.

As predicted, revisionists will not give a straight answer, that X number of corpses are buried at the camp and they died from Y.

[TlsMS93]

I’ve been through the Kola thread multiple times and don’t see any kind of response to the questions of: 1) how many bodies revisionists think are buried there; and 2) how those bodies got there, if not by a mass gassing operation.

I’m not asking for proofs so much as for your theories. Because it seems like there are more bodies than what a transit camp would warrant.

As predicted, revisionists will not give a straight answer, that X number of corpses are buried at the camp and they died from Y.

First, no grave in Belzec contains only ashes, and even if it did, the space claimed would not be sufficient to accommodate the 500-600 thousand. Mass murder in Belzec assumes that the Nazis did not register their departures to the East, but not even wood is documented for these camps, and that does not stop you from alleging extraordinary cremations there. Only you demand concrete evidence, when we demand against your theses you keep accusing us of not having an argument for what happened.

[bombsaway]

Only you demand concrete evidence, when we demand against your theses you keep accusing us of not having an argument for what happened.

Actually, revisionists again have a different standard here.

When you're asking about fuel / wood shipements to the camp, you're demanding evidence of a specific aspect of the alleged operations.

When we're asking about direct evidence for mass resettlement of millions, we're asking for ANY direct evidence, something, even a single diary entry. And your side has nothing here.

Do you understand the difference?

[bombsaway]

But the graphs of the analyses of the 137 drill cores presented by Kola show that the ash in the graves is normally intermingled with sand, that in more than half of the samples the layer of ash and sand is extremely thin, and that at times the ash is close to being completely absent. Furthermore, out of the 236 samples, 99 are irrelevant, and among the 137 relevant ones
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.

From Mattogno, the entirety of his analysis about the ash contents of the graves. He's talking about human ash by the way, Kola distinguishes between human and wood ash.

What does this mean to you?

[TlsMS93]

Only you demand concrete evidence, when we demand against your theses you keep accusing us of not having an argument for what happened.

Actually, revisionists again have a different standard here.

When you're asking about fuel / wood shipements to the camp, you're demanding evidence of a specific aspect of the alleged operations.

When we're asking about direct evidence for mass resettlement of millions, we're asking for ANY direct evidence, something, even a single diary entry. And your side has nothing here.

Do you understand the difference?

You know that Germany lost the war, right? Soon its enemies took everything they could and liberated everything too? Especially the Soviet side, which was on the border of the bulk of the so-called Holocaust. Now, if there were records of massive deliveries of wood to these camps, there would be no reason not to make it available to the public. The opposite is true. If there were records of Jews being transferred to occupied Soviet regions, it would be difficult for the Allied side to accuse the Nazis of implementing their “crimes against humanity.”

You may think that what I just said is just a conspiracy, but to say that they destroyed everything would also be a conspiracy, a conspiracy by conspiracy, the one on the exterminationist side is even more incredible to support.

[TlsMS93]

But the graphs of the analyses of the 137 drill cores presented by Kola show that the ash in the graves is normally intermingled with sand, that in more than half of the samples the layer of ash and sand is extremely thin, and that at times the ash is close to being completely absent. Furthermore, out of the 236 samples, 99 are irrelevant, and among the 137 relevant ones
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.

From Mattogno, the entirety of his analysis about the ash contents of the graves. He's talking about human ash by the way, Kola distinguishes between human and wood ash.

What does this mean to you?

What Mattogno maintains is that the amount of ash from the wood alone would have been enough to exceed the 21,000 m3 discovered by Kola, assuming that no ash was mixed with soil as is the case.

If you think that finding ash mixed with sand in a place where people for years turned over the ground in search of valuables and from that inferring that there was a mass murder, what can I do?

[HansHill]

From Mattogno, the entirety of his analysis about the ash contents of the graves. He's talking about human ash by the way, Kola distinguishes between human and wood ash.

What does this mean to you?

HH Vol 9

[HansHill]

I’ve been through the Kola thread multiple times and don’t see any kind of response to the questions of: 1) how many bodies revisionists think are buried there; and 2) how those bodies got there, if not by a mass gassing operation.

I’m not asking for proofs so much as for your theories. Because it seems like there are more bodies than what a transit camp would warrant.

1) Evidently less than 600,000, and very likely by orders of magnitude. Before going anywhere else, this alone means you don't have a Holocaust.

With your Holocaust neatly out of the way, Mattogno puts the theoretical maximum at 170,000. This being highly theoretical, we can immediately dispense with it for reasons that should be obvious, but nevertheless were explained to Bombsaway in the other thread repeatedly, and settle somewhere far south of there, in the ballpark of a high 4 digit number or very low 5 digit number.

While we're asking questions, at this point you would need to explain where the other 400,000~500,000 Jews went who were processed at Belzec, and not accounted for in the Kola ash. I mean this is an utterly redundant question because we know they were (all) transported East but in previous threads you committed that this could not possibly be the case, so I'd be interested in your theory. You can ELI5 if you like.

Let us also not forget that kola & co were not just looking for ash & corpses - they were looking for the gas chambers. How embarrassing to not find the most important part of your Holocaust.

2) Jumping to death by gassing without a gas chamber is beyond ridiculous. What is much less ridiculous is that many people died during the course of WW2 due to appalling conditions and you know, all the stuff that goes along with war. I'll cite just one example, Kolomea, where an entire trainload of 2,000 Jews arrived at Belzec dead almost to a man.

http://holocaustresearchproject.org/ar/ ... lomea.html

Times this by any reasonable number, and everything converges with the Revisionist account neatly and without and ridiculous assumptions or logic gaps.

[bombsaway]

You know that Germany lost the war, right? Soon its enemies took everything they could and liberated everything too? Especially the Soviet side, which was on the border of the bulk of the so-called Holocaust. Now, if there were records of massive deliveries of wood to these camps, there would be no reason not to make it available to the public. The opposite is true. If there were records of Jews being transferred to occupied Soviet regions, it would be difficult for the Allied side to accuse the Nazis of implementing their “crimes against humanity.”

You may think that what I just said is just a conspiracy, but to say that they destroyed everything would also be a conspiracy, a conspiracy by conspiracy, the one on the exterminationist side is even more incredible to support.

So the conspiracy that orthodoxy advocates for is -- Nazi leadership destroyed the records surrounding the Reinhardt camps to cover up their top secret mass killing program, and since they knew it was top secret were very careful about keeping documentation to a minimum in the first place,

the conspiracy you advocate -- the allies, coordinating across vast distances and beyond political lines, destroyed not only all the evidence of millions of people being transported and maintained somewhere (much much more documents than would be created for a top secret killing program) but also suppressed all possible witnesses of this mass event

Is this assessment accurate so far?

[bombsaway]

But the graphs of the analyses of the 137 drill cores presented by Kola show that the ash in the graves is normally intermingled with sand, that in more than half of the samples the layer of ash and sand is extremely thin, and that at times the ash is close to being completely absent. Furthermore, out of the 236 samples, 99 are irrelevant, and among the 137 relevant ones
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.

From Mattogno, the entirety of his analysis about the ash contents of the graves. He's talking about human ash by the way, Kola distinguishes between human and wood ash.

What does this mean to you?

What Mattogno maintains is that the amount of ash from the wood alone would have been enough to exceed the 21,000 m3 discovered by Kola, assuming that no ash was mixed with soil as is the case.

If you think that finding ash mixed with sand in a place where people for years turned over the ground in search of valuables and from that inferring that there was a mass murder, what can I do?

Mattogno's claims about wood ash is a topic shift, which we could talk about, but you're changing the subject.

I don't know how ash layers are going to form by people digging around.

[TlsMS93]

From Mattogno, the entirety of his analysis about the ash contents of the graves. He's talking about human ash by the way, Kola distinguishes between human and wood ash.

What does this mean to you?

What Mattogno maintains is that the amount of ash from the wood alone would have been enough to exceed the 21,000 m3 discovered by Kola, assuming that no ash was mixed with soil as is the case.

If you think that finding ash mixed with sand in a place where people for years turned over the ground in search of valuables and from that inferring that there was a mass murder, what can I do?

Mattogno's claims about wood ash is a topic shift, which we could talk about, but you're changing the subject.

I don't know how ash layers are going to form by people digging around.

I already answered the topic. And you were the one who brought up this ash issue, so I'm not the one who's inserting a discussion in the wrong topic.

[bombsaway]

What Mattogno maintains is that the amount of ash from the wood alone would have been enough to exceed the 21,000 m3 discovered by Kola, assuming that no ash was mixed with soil as is the case.

If you think that finding ash mixed with sand in a place where people for years turned over the ground in search of valuables and from that inferring that there was a mass murder, what can I do?

Mattogno's claims about wood ash is a topic shift, which we could talk about, but you're changing the subject.

I don't know how ash layers are going to form by people digging around.

I already answered the topic. And you were the one who brought up this ash issue, so I'm not the one who's inserting a discussion in the wrong topic.

The thread topic is Kola's study, the title is "Explain Like I'm 5"

Yeah I'd say it's relevant to ask revisionists to explain why Nazis destroyed bodies than mixed with sand and deposited back into the graves.

You in particular said something blatantly incorrect about only "6 samples" or something or other showing ash. So I was correcting that as well.

In regards to wood ash, Mattogno's calculations don't take into account liquid fuel being used, and the charcoal remnants being taken out of the camp for use elsewhere, which would be common sense practice

Yes, wood ashes had several important industrial and economic applications with 1940s technology:

Potash Production: Wood ashes were a primary source of potassium carbonate (potash), which was vital for:

Glass manufacturing
Soap making
Fertilizer production
Textile bleaching


Lye Production: Wood ashes were commonly used to make lye (sodium hydroxide) through a leaching process, which was essential for:

Industrial soap manufacturing
Paper production
Chemical manufacturing
Cleaning products


Agricultural Uses:

Direct soil amendment due to high potassium and calcium content
pH adjustment for acidic soils
Pest control in agricultural settings


Industrial Cleaning:

Degreasing metal parts
Industrial surface cleaning
Removing paint and varnish


Leather Industry:

Dehairing hides
Tanning processes
Leather treatment



During World War II, wood ash became particularly important in countries that had limited access to industrial chemicals, as it provided a domestic source of essential chemical compounds for both civilian and military industrial processes.

[TlsMS93]

Mattogno's claims about wood ash is a topic shift, which we could talk about, but you're changing the subject.

I don't know how ash layers are going to form by people digging around.

I already answered the topic. And you were the one who brought up this ash issue, so I'm not the one who's inserting a discussion in the wrong topic.

The thread topic is Kola's study, the title is "Explain Like I'm 5"

Yeah I'd say it's relevant to ask revisionists to explain why Nazis destroyed bodies than mixed with sand and deposited back into the graves.

You in particular said something blatantly incorrect about only "6 samples" or something or other showing ash. So I was correcting that as well.

In regards to wood ash, Mattogno's calculations don't take into account liquid fuel being used, and the charcoal remnants being taken out of the camp for use elsewhere, which would be common sense practice

Yes, wood ashes had several important industrial and economic applications with 1940s technology:

Potash Production: Wood ashes were a primary source of potassium carbonate (potash), which was vital for:

Glass manufacturing
Soap making
Fertilizer production
Textile bleaching


Lye Production: Wood ashes were commonly used to make lye (sodium hydroxide) through a leaching process, which was essential for:

Industrial soap manufacturing
Paper production
Chemical manufacturing
Cleaning products


Agricultural Uses:

Direct soil amendment due to high potassium and calcium content
pH adjustment for acidic soils
Pest control in agricultural settings


Industrial Cleaning:

Degreasing metal parts
Industrial surface cleaning
Removing paint and varnish


Leather Industry:

Dehairing hides
Tanning processes
Leather treatment



During World War II, wood ash became particularly important in countries that had limited access to industrial chemicals, as it provided a domestic source of essential chemical compounds for both civilian and military industrial processes.

How ridiculous. Do you mean to say that you believe that the Germans simply took away the tons of ashes from the cremations for other uses and left the rest and mixed it with sand as evidence of their crimes to be prosecuted later?

The Germans already had a gigantic deficit of 6 million tons of wood for everyday use, let alone to cremate millions of people. Again, no one disputes that there were cremations, but the extent and circumstances of these deaths is disputed.