The Kola Study - An Own Goal by Team Holocaust

[Archie]

I'm not sure you saw that I responded to this clarifying what I meant by explain

[...]

When you look at the details of what happened there are gaps in the record (about how and when burning was done, timelines). But your bias shows through when you say stuff like "If you can't explain where they buried 600,000 bodies". You are trying to show that the story is impossible of it, but you are cherry picking a version to use which is not even supported by the primary data. Historian estimates were based on rough deportation records before the Hoefle telegram.

Based on that the estimate of those killed should be lowered. Belzec museum uses 450,000. https://www.belzec.eu/en/history/camp_history/2

Why do you use the higher figure?

We can argue about grave space and what happened to the wood ash, but it is fair to ask about the body ash. The notion that there isn't a lot of it "The ash that is there is completely consistent with a vastly smaller number of bodies."

Kola specifies roughly what percentage of the graves were occupied by crematory contents. With grave number 5 it is

[...]

How many bodies do you think this is? You're speculating about ash, so let's talk ash.

600,000 is a standard number for Belzec. Arad's text is the standard work on the AR camps and that's what he uses. Lots of sources use it. Feel free to insist upon a lower figure to try to make the math slightly less ridiculous, but do realize you are undermining the six million if you go with low end estimates for the individual camps.

I presented both figures in the wiki article. It does not appreciably change the big picture. The lower number implies a density of 20 bodies per cu meter. The higher number 28. The later I would say is outright impossible (unless you assume all children, meat grinder, no dirt). The 20 is on the fringe of theoretical possibility under contrived assumptions.

Grave 5, Kola claims it's 1,350 cu meters. Implicitly, this one grave would have once had 27,540 to 38,070 bodies in it. Yeah, right.

Grave 11 consists of only ONE positive borehole which Kola extrapolated to a 9x5x1.9 grave (80 cu meters). Implicitly, we are being asked to assume this grave once had over 1,600 bodies in it.

[Archie]

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.

1) I quoted where Arad says that approximately 600,000 bodies were buried there at the camp. Are you denying that he said this?

2) Do you think there was a big mound of ~150,000 unburied bodies sitting there at the camp toward the end of 1942? Is that your theory?

[bombsaway]

I'm not sure you saw that I responded to this clarifying what I meant by explain

[...]

When you look at the details of what happened there are gaps in the record (about how and when burning was done, timelines). But your bias shows through when you say stuff like "If you can't explain where they buried 600,000 bodies". You are trying to show that the story is impossible of it, but you are cherry picking a version to use which is not even supported by the primary data. Historian estimates were based on rough deportation records before the Hoefle telegram.

Based on that the estimate of those killed should be lowered. Belzec museum uses 450,000. https://www.belzec.eu/en/history/camp_history/2

Why do you use the higher figure?

We can argue about grave space and what happened to the wood ash, but it is fair to ask about the body ash. The notion that there isn't a lot of it "The ash that is there is completely consistent with a vastly smaller number of bodies."

Kola specifies roughly what percentage of the graves were occupied by crematory contents. With grave number 5 it is

[...]

How many bodies do you think this is? You're speculating about ash, so let's talk ash.

600,000 is a standard number for Belzec. Arad's text is the standard work on the AR camps and that's what he uses. Lots of sources use it. Feel free to insist upon a lower figure to try to make the math slightly less ridiculous, but do realize you are undermining the six million if you go with low end estimates for the individual camps.

I presented both figures in the wiki article. It does not appreciably change the big picture. The lower number implies a density of 20 bodies per cu meter. The higher number 28. The later I would say is outright impossible (unless you assume all children, meat grinder, no dirt). The 20 is on the fringe of theoretical possibility under contrived assumptions.

Grave 5, Kola claims it's 1,350 cu meters. Implicitly, this one grave would have once had 27,540 to 38,070 bodies in it. Yeah, right.

Grave 11 consists of only ONE positive borehole which Kola extrapolated to a 9x5x1.9 grave (80 cu meters). Implicitly, we are being asked to assume this grave once had over 1,600 bodies in it.

Bodies being partially burned in the grave as per Pfannensteil

Bodies decomposing, weighing down on one another, and liquifying, further volume reduction

All these take my very conservative 13 per cubic meter estimate (because w only 3 adults Provan wasn't occupying much of the vertical space) and push it up to 20 per cubic meter easily.

You cannot say the grave space is impossible, which is what you need to do to disprove the Holocaust in the absence of direct evidence.

Now talk to me about grave 5 consisting of 70% crematory content layers. Remember my explanation and see if you come up with a plausible explanation of how graves like this would have come into being.

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.

You haven't done this and when you do I expect you'll find that it's not so easy to justify. But give it some thought like I did the questions of grave space. At least a few hundred words, so far you've brushed it off.

[Callafangers]

Same result.

You can do this all day, bombsaway, but when you are not framing the variables correctly and entirely, you are going to get the same garbage in / garbage out scenario you keep deliberately creating.

Moreover, ChatGPT is trained on general knowledge on topics like BMI, weight loss, volume and density, etc. When you get into particulars insofar as dynamics involving packing densities and certain thresholds for weight loss, etc., there is not a lot of language in general circulation about these topics and so ChatGPT's ability to generalize into them is limited (not better than the typical human with decent intelligence/knowledge). Thus, you do not add anything to the conversation by quoting ChatGPT in this regard.

There is no discussion of malleability and structural constancy in your conversation with ChatGPT. These are variables which must be considered specifically for the conversation we are now having, as they become extremely crucial when a body begins lean and then becomes extremely underweight (less proportional fat).

To illustrate the point, here are the approximate sizes of the persons in the box, based upon the average 33.25kg weight of all participants (as reported by Provan) and estimated for their visible differences in size/weight:

subjectssizes.jpg (177.58 KiB) Viewed 94 times

You will notice above the approximate original weight for each subject, estimated height, followed by their initial weight minus 25%. In the far-right columns, you will see the threshold for being clinically underweight (at which point significant health risks follow). I've had to search back-and-forth on various public health websites to identify these but please feel free to verify them yourself. Notice that the 25% reduction brings all subjects to well-below this threshold.

Taking the largest subject as an example (given he is in view of Provan's camera and his contours can be somewhat analyzed by the fold pattern on his shirt), the above estimates he weighs about 145 lbs (65.7 kg), based upon his apparent BMI and standing approximately 5'9" (1.75 m). For comparison, here is another man standing at 5'9" and 145 lbs (showing the beginning of his muscle-building journey):

59-145.jpg (73.53 KiB) Viewed 94 times

Using Provan's 5'9" man as an example (refer to the photo in this post: https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=1418#p1418 ), here is a table which breaks down and explains his expected reduction in volume, over the course of losing 25% of this body weight (take note of the explanations in the right column, at each step):

reduction.jpg (203.19 KiB) Viewed 94 times

If anything, this estimated reduction of 10% in volume for 25% weight lost for the individuals in Provan's experiment is an overestimate, given all of the variables:

• The people in the box start off lean (more dense tissue)
• Most loss would come from muscle (dense tissue)
• There is necessarily a diminishing rate of volume change

Your suggestion that the volume change would be proportional or somehow even greater than the amount of weight loss is, therefore, completely laughable.

[bombsaway]

If anything, this estimated reduction of 10% in volume for 25% weight lost for the individuals in Provan's experiment is an overestimate, given all of the variables:

Where are you getting these numbers from? Did you just make them up?

Also there's A LOT of vertical space in Provan's box due to lots of small children and only 3 adults. Why didn't you factor that in? I didn't because I can afford to be generous with you on this problem.

[Callafangers]

If anything, this estimated reduction of 10% in volume for 25% weight lost for the individuals in Provan's experiment is an overestimate, given all of the variables:

Where are you getting these numbers from? Did you just make them up?

Also there's A LOT of vertical space in Provan's box due to lots of small children and only 3 adults. Why didn't you factor that in? I didn't because I can afford to be generous with you on this problem.

Are you even trying, bombsaway?

The people in Provan's box are not standing neatly with their arms at their side. They are contorted to fill as much as they can:

provan1.jpg (78.13 KiB) Viewed 82 times

The largest man clearly has at least one of his arms held up and bent at the elbow, to fill in the upper space. The other adults have likely done similar. A small child at the bottom has their arm between sets of legs (hand reaching outside the box) and the small girl on the right is pressed flush against the side. This is a deliberate, coordinated effort to fill as much space as possible, with willing participants.

[Callafangers]

Where are you getting these numbers from? Did you just make them up?

The numbers are based on the available information which you provided, or are otherwise explained logically. If you disagree with the logic, you need to explain how and where there is room for disagreement.

I have been more than generous in each estimate. This is why your arguments rely on fallacy or ChatGPT output.

[Archie]

33 kg is too low. That's like a 10 year old. That's not reasonable for an average. Eastern European Jews did not have a Nigeria-like population pyramid.

Here is Christian Bale at 120 lbs (55 kg) for the movie The Machinist. He is somewhat tall (6 ft) but even adjusting down a bit you see that most grown men would be dead before they reach 100 lbs.



Here is Natalie Portman at 98 lbs (45 kg) for the Black Swan.



If you search for photos of the Krakow ghetto (relevant for Belzec), the people do not really look emaciated, nor are they midgets.





And again if you want to go with the emaciated argument, you need to revise up your estimates for the fuel required. Those bodies do not burn well because of the lack of fat.

Also (sorry, can't resist)

[bombsaway]

Where are you getting these numbers from? Did you just make them up?

The numbers are based on the available information which you provided, or are otherwise explained logically. If you disagree with the logic, you need to explain how and where there is room for disagreement.

I have been more than generous in each estimate. This is why your arguments rely on fallacy or ChatGPT output.

Can you look at this, do you think it's accurate?

I'll analyze this weight loss progression table and its accuracy.

The table shows data for a male subject at 5'9" (1.8m), tracking weight loss from 145 lbs (65.8 kg) down to 108.75 lbs (49.3 kg), with corresponding percentage losses and volume reductions.

Key observations regarding accuracy:

The mathematical calculations (weight loss percentages, kg/lbs conversions) are accurate
However, the target weight of 108.75 lbs (49.3 kg) for a 5'9" male would be concerning as it falls significantly below the healthy weight range. For reference, a healthy BMI range (18.5-24.9) for a 5'9" male would be approximately:
Minimum healthy weight: ~125 lbs (56.7 kg)
Maximum healthy weight: ~169 lbs (76.7 kg)
The initial weight of 145 lbs is actually in the healthy range, contrary to suggesting it represents "relatively low body fat for a healthy individual"
The volume reduction percentages seem disproportionately low compared to the weight loss percentages, though this could be theoretically possible depending on body composition and density changes.
Would you like me to elaborate on any particular aspect of the data or its implications for health and safety?

Copy
Retry


N
What is more likely, relative volume loss or increase as body fat and muscle are lost with weight loss?

In weight loss, relative volume loss is almost always proportionally GREATER than weight loss percentage, not less as shown in this table. Here's why:

Density considerations:
Body fat has a density of approximately 0.9 g/cm³ (it floats in water)
Muscle has a density of approximately 1.06 g/cm³
Overall body density averages around 1.0 g/cm³
When losing weight:
Fat loss results in disproportionately LARGER volume changes because fat takes up more space per unit mass
Example: 1 kg of fat takes up about 1.1 liters of volume, while 1 kg of muscle takes up about 0.9 liters
Therefore, this table's volume reduction percentages (showing only 10% volume loss with 25% weight loss) appear significantly incorrect. We would typically expect:

Volume loss percentages to be HIGHER than weight loss percentages
Especially in early stages of weight loss when more fat is being lost
Could be roughly 1.1-1.3x the weight loss percentage depending on composition
For example, a 10% weight loss might typically result in 11-13% volume loss, not the 6% shown in the table.

Would you like me to explain more about the relationship between density, mass, and volume in body composition changes?

Your argument seems to be based on the adults being lean (therefore weight loss is not body fat), but Provan's document says "normal adults". It's fair to assess them to be average.

[bombsaway]

33 kg is too low. That's like a 10 year old. That's not reasonable for an average. Eastern European Jews did not have a Nigeria-like population pyramid.

In my estimates I said 40 kg, because I am actually generous. Gerstein said 35.

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... togno.html

HC blog argues 34 is possible, and AI agrees as a lowerbound weight

Based on my analysis of the document, I'll think through this carefully:

Key considerations:

1. Adult Height: The evidence suggests an average adult height of around 1.60 meters for Polish Jews in this period was reasonable, supported by:
- 1906 data showing Galician Jewish males at 1.623m and females at 1.506m
- Limited height increase likely between 1906-1942 due to poor conditions
- Slightly more females than males in the population (52% female according to 1931 census)

2. Adult Weight: For severely malnourished adults at 1.60m height:
- The BMI range for "underweight" was 14.84-18.75
- Documented severe malnutrition and mass mortality in ghettos
- Photographic evidence showing extreme emaciation
- Medical evidence from Warsaw Ghetto physicians studying hunger disease

3. Child Weight:
- Children made up around 29.6% of the population
- Severe malnutrition documented among children
- Photographic evidence showing extreme emaciation of children
- Medical studies from Warsaw Ghetto showing impact on children

4. Contextual Factors:
- Deliberate starvation policies in ghettos
- Massive mortality rates from malnutrition (e.g. 83,000 deaths in Warsaw Ghetto)
- People were typically held in ghettos before deportation
- Selection of weaker/more malnourished individuals for deportation

Given these factors, I would assess that a reasonable minimum average weight would be around 34-35 kg for the total population (adults and children combined). This assumes:

- Adult weights averaging around 43 kg (BMI ~16.8)
- Child weights averaging around 16 kg
- About 70% adults and 30% children

This estimate is supported by:
1. The documented severe malnutrition in ghettos
2. High mortality rates from starvation
3. Medical evidence from ghetto doctors
4. Photographic evidence
5. The practice of selecting weaker individuals for deportation
6. The length of time people spent in ghettos before deportation

While this is an extremely low average weight, the historical evidence of systematic starvation and its effects supports it as plausible for this specific population under these specific circumstances. The ghetto conditions were deliberately designed to produce severe malnutrition.

I'd say the AI misses on the proportion of children, (according to mainstream historiography Reinhardt children , as non employable were over represented). So the lower bound could actually be lower. 35% of Jews were kept in camps for labor, and children weren't that percentage could be closer 50%. So a true lower-bound might be around 30 kg average weight.

BTW you still aren't humoring me about my questions about the ash. Since you aren't I think I won't humor you guys anymore than I have, I've been very generous I think.

[Callafangers]

Can you look at this, do you think it's accurate?

I'll analyze this weight loss progression table and its accuracy.

The table shows data for a male subject at 5'9" (1.8m), tracking weight loss from 145 lbs (65.8 kg) down to 108.75 lbs (49.3 kg), with corresponding percentage losses and volume reductions.

Key observations regarding accuracy:

The mathematical calculations (weight loss percentages, kg/lbs conversions) are accurate
However, the target weight of 108.75 lbs (49.3 kg) for a 5'9" male would be concerning as it falls significantly below the healthy weight range. For reference, a healthy BMI range (18.5-24.9) for a 5'9" male would be approximately:
Minimum healthy weight: ~125 lbs (56.7 kg)
Maximum healthy weight: ~169 lbs (76.7 kg)
The initial weight of 145 lbs is actually in the healthy range, contrary to suggesting it represents "relatively low body fat for a healthy individual"
The volume reduction percentages seem disproportionately low compared to the weight loss percentages, though this could be theoretically possible depending on body composition and density changes.
Would you like me to elaborate on any particular aspect of the data or its implications for health and safety?

What is more likely, relative volume loss or increase as body fat and muscle are lost with weight loss?

In weight loss, relative volume loss is almost always proportionally GREATER than weight loss percentage, not less as shown in this table. Here's why:

Density considerations:
Body fat has a density of approximately 0.9 g/cm³ (it floats in water)
Muscle has a density of approximately 1.06 g/cm³
Overall body density averages around 1.0 g/cm³
When losing weight:
Fat loss results in disproportionately LARGER volume changes because fat takes up more space per unit mass
Example: 1 kg of fat takes up about 1.1 liters of volume, while 1 kg of muscle takes up about 0.9 liters
Therefore, this table's volume reduction percentages (showing only 10% volume loss with 25% weight loss) appear significantly incorrect. We would typically expect:

Volume loss percentages to be HIGHER than weight loss percentages
Especially in early stages of weight loss when more fat is being lost
Could be roughly 1.1-1.3x the weight loss percentage depending on composition
For example, a 10% weight loss might typically result in 11-13% volume loss, not the 6% shown in the table.

Would you like me to explain more about the relationship between density, mass, and volume in body composition changes?

Your argument seems to be based on the adults being lean (therefore weight loss is not body fat), but Provan's document says "normal adults". It's fair to assess them to be average.

The people in Provan's photo are clearly lean which is akin to the term "healthy" and, many would consider (especially outside the US and other obese nations), "normal". It was predictable that you would argue in this way ("splitting hairs", per usual), which is why I provided a table which estimates the weight of each participant and included a photograph example of a man at the exact dimensions I suggested. That man is lean, bombsaway, and his shape looks nearly identical to the man in the photograph. What are you even arguing, here? Don't bother answering that -- you're here for pilpul, as we both already know.

Also, if Christian Bale loses another 12 lbs (i.e. another 12 lbs. of his body weight, here), will his overall packable volume have reduced another 10%?

Christian_Bale-height-weight-age-2004-4.jpg (77.55 KiB) Viewed 40 times

Do you think Christian Bale will suddenly fit into a 10% smaller box (a massive reduction), just by losing 12 lbs? If so, would that 10% be in length, width, or depth?

Or, does there come a point where his skeleton and its permanent structure is a near-total barrier to further reduction in volume?

Another way to put it: if the 12 lbs is fat (or even muscle), do you think compressing this fat/tissue would not allow the same essential "packing" against him as would lightly pressing against him at his current weight (in photo above)? Does gravity not play a role in your mind, bombsaway?

[Nessie]

...

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

How many people are buried at Belzec?

You can answer with a range.

[Nessie]

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.

1) I quoted where Arad says that approximately 600,000 bodies were buried there at the camp. Are you denying that he said this?

No.

2) Do you think there was a big mound of ~150,000 unburied bodies sitting there at the camp toward the end of 1942? Is that your theory?

No.

Any arrivals, after cremations had started, would then be cremated along with the exhumed corpses. Since cremations started in October, that potentially means as many as 200,000 corpses were never buried, and no they were not piled up, they were cremated, as the use of pyres had started.

We are all having to deal with possibilities and unknowns, where there are gaps in the evidence. What is certain is that the disturbed ground containing cremated remains corroborates witnesses and documents that hundreds of thousands went to Belzec and they were killed. There are only two other places in the world, that have ground like Belzec. Sobibor and TII. That is not a coincidence, as they are also AR camps.

[Nazgul]

There are only two other places in the world, that have ground like Belzec. Sobibor and TII. That is not a coincidence, as they are also AR camps.

Please present the geology reports of the whole world being examined; this is what you are suggesting. Treblinka was used as an aerial and artillary bombing range by the Russians, so it cannot be like Belzec of Sobibor. Present the forum what you mean by "ground like"; loamy sand or clay or what?