The CODOH Revisionist Forum

HansHill wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 5:11 pm

bombsaway wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 11:30 pm Sticking to the thread topic, what's a comparable event to *mass resettlement* that has been accepted in history? Select one and then we can compare the evidence to what you have for the thing you believe in. I will show you that it is closer to flat earth theory than accepted history.

You seem to be in this game longer than I am, i used to lurk the old board and saw you posting there. So why don't we skip one entire round of exchanges and you just tell me what positions within Holocaust Revisionism (HR) equate to Flat Earth (FE) and why, since after all i) you are the one asserting it and ii) this is what you are so eager to tell me anyway?

I'll be eagerly reading between website blackouts.

I said so, right here

bombsaway wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 5:45 pm

Nevertheless all this is a diversion from the point that I'm making which is the similarity of revisionists and flat earthers in terms of asserting historical realities with no positive evidence. In both cases, the mainstream story is deemed impossible, therefore, in process of elimination fashion, these events must have occurred. For flat earthers, this is a mass cover up of flat earth by scientific and governmental institutions, for revisionists this is mass resettlement / coverup / plus conspiracy to fabricate evidence (witnesses and documents and archeological studies).

The no positive evidence thing becomes starkly obvious when you compare your beliefs about mass resettlement or whatever to other resettlements (or even "Events" in general as asserted in history). You can't use process of elimination as the basis of such assertions. Flat Earthers don't have evidence of a cover up, but it MUST exist because of other factors.

bombsaway wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 5:19 pm

HansHill wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 5:11 pm

bombsaway wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 11:30 pm Sticking to the thread topic, what's a comparable event to *mass resettlement* that has been accepted in history? Select one and then we can compare the evidence to what you have for the thing you believe in. I will show you that it is closer to flat earth theory than accepted history.

You seem to be in this game longer than I am, i used to lurk the old board and saw you posting there. So why don't we skip one entire round of exchanges and you just tell me what positions within Holocaust Revisionism (HR) equate to Flat Earth (FE) and why, since after all i) you are the one asserting it and ii) this is what you are so eager to tell me anyway?

I'll be eagerly reading between website blackouts.

I said so, right here

bombsaway wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 5:45 pm

Nevertheless all this is a diversion from the point that I'm making which is the similarity of revisionists and flat earthers in terms of asserting historical realities with no positive evidence. In both cases, the mainstream story is deemed impossible, therefore, in process of elimination fashion, these events must have occurred. For flat earthers, this is a mass cover up of flat earth by scientific and governmental institutions, for revisionists this is mass resettlement / coverup / plus conspiracy to fabricate evidence (witnesses and documents and archeological studies).

The no positive evidence thing becomes starkly obvious when you compare your beliefs about mass resettlement or whatever to other resettlements (or even "Events" in general as asserted in history). You can't use process of elimination as the basis of such assertions. Flat Earthers don't have evidence of a cover up, but it MUST exist because of other factors.

Wait, that's your argument? That HR ipso facto comes up empty handed due to the non-murdered Jews not being geo-located.

Fine. Then by merits of your own ruleset , HR comes up completely empty handed, lets call that position 0. But Holocaust Orthodoxy doesn't have a murder weapon, and the bodies aren't where you need them to be? So you're sitting on position -2 by your own ruleset?

As Callafanger so rightly said, who's the god damn Flat Earther around here?

Exterminationist;

Oh yea!, well, WHERE'D THEY GO?

Revisionist;

I don't know exactly, because they aren't where you said they would be. They appear to be missing.
Can you point to them on the map please?

Exterminationist;

Flat earth, elvis is alive holocaust denier!!!

/shrug

To be clear, 'where'd they go' is a pertinent question. Hard to exactly count a people that moved to a different continent, changed their name, and didn't get counted on census though. It would be much easier to just, you know, show me where they were buried, assuming that happened.

Look at Netanyahu's daddy. Just, moved to Israel, made up a fantasy name, and...I'm not going to get into that. He moved to the Levant and changed his name. (A minor clarification, the 'Netanyahu' family emigrated to mandate Palestine in 1920, the point here is that the name change was completely normal and not something that drew any attention or ire, just a 'habit' of a people)

HansHill wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 5:30 pm

bombsaway wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 5:19 pm

HansHill wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 5:11 pm

You seem to be in this game longer than I am, i used to lurk the old board and saw you posting there. So why don't we skip one entire round of exchanges and you just tell me what positions within Holocaust Revisionism (HR) equate to Flat Earth (FE) and why, since after all i) you are the one asserting it and ii) this is what you are so eager to tell me anyway?

I'll be eagerly reading between website blackouts.

I said so, right here

bombsaway wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 5:45 pm

Nevertheless all this is a diversion from the point that I'm making which is the similarity of revisionists and flat earthers in terms of asserting historical realities with no positive evidence. In both cases, the mainstream story is deemed impossible, therefore, in process of elimination fashion, these events must have occurred. For flat earthers, this is a mass cover up of flat earth by scientific and governmental institutions, for revisionists this is mass resettlement / coverup / plus conspiracy to fabricate evidence (witnesses and documents and archeological studies).

The no positive evidence thing becomes starkly obvious when you compare your beliefs about mass resettlement or whatever to other resettlements (or even "Events" in general as asserted in history). You can't use process of elimination as the basis of such assertions. Flat Earthers don't have evidence of a cover up, but it MUST exist because of other factors.

Wait, that's your argument? That HR ipso facto comes up empty handed due to the non-murdered Jews not being geo-located.

Not just that they're geo located but there's no evidence whatsoever of them getting there or being maintained there, no witness accounts, documents, or physical evidence.

Fine. Then by merits of your own ruleset , HR comes up completely empty handed, lets call that position 0. But Holocaust Orthodoxy doesn't have a murder weapon, and the bodies aren't where you need them to be? So you're sitting on position -2 by your own ruleset?

As Callafanger so rightly said, who's the god damn Flat Earther around here?

This thread is "Holocaust Revisionism vs. Flat-Earth Theory" not orthodoxy vs Flat Earth

I see you're unwilling to defend and scrutinize your own positive beliefs, which is weak as hell, and similar to flat earthers, but I can answer to this, even though it's off topic.

In a comparative sense, orthodoxy checks way more boxes for their positive claims. So the "murder weapon" haven't been found but this doesn't preclude events from happening. W criminality broadly, it's not so easy to destroy your weapon (eg smelt it down) and then you're suddenly innocent. The bodies aren't where "I" need them to be? Based on the archeological studies, the graves show what I would expect. Callafanger's notion of "trace" amounts of ash is not evidenced. I don't think we can say definitively how much ash is in there, but it would be silly to expect the Nazis to have distributed trace amounts of ash across an enormous quantity of crematory mixture.

What you're left with is the documentary and witness evidence, and yes mass events and genocides, killings have been asserted and accepted on the basis of these, eg the examples I listed earlier : mass killing of civilians by communist regimes, Japan genocide against China, Armenian genocide

bombsaway wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 5:19 pm

HansHill wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 5:11 pm

bombsaway wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 11:30 pm Sticking to the thread topic, what's a comparable event to *mass resettlement* that has been accepted in history? Select one and then we can compare the evidence to what you have for the thing you believe in. I will show you that it is closer to flat earth theory than accepted history.

You seem to be in this game longer than I am, i used to lurk the old board and saw you posting there. So why don't we skip one entire round of exchanges and you just tell me what positions within Holocaust Revisionism (HR) equate to Flat Earth (FE) and why, since after all i) you are the one asserting it and ii) this is what you are so eager to tell me anyway?

I'll be eagerly reading between website blackouts.

I said so, right here

bombsaway wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 5:45 pm

Nevertheless all this is a diversion from the point that I'm making which is the similarity of revisionists and flat earthers in terms of asserting historical realities with no positive evidence. In both cases, the mainstream story is deemed impossible, therefore, in process of elimination fashion, these events must have occurred. For flat earthers, this is a mass cover up of flat earth by scientific and governmental institutions, for revisionists this is mass resettlement / coverup / plus conspiracy to fabricate evidence (witnesses and documents and archeological studies).

The no positive evidence thing becomes starkly obvious when you compare your beliefs about mass resettlement or whatever to other resettlements (or even "Events" in general as asserted in history). You can't use process of elimination as the basis of such assertions. Flat Earthers don't have evidence of a cover up, but it MUST exist because of other factors.

It seems you are attempting to make a really awkward pivot to WDTG posting even though it doesn't really fit.

Flat Earth is not reality a "historical" position. It's a scientific one. And Flat Earthers wouldn't agree that there's "no evidence" for their position. They claim that they have evidence. So it becomes a matter of specific arguments and interpretations.

Why you guys want to talk about Flat Earth all the time instead of simply proving the Holocaust is beyond me.

Archie wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 6:05 pm

bombsaway wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 5:19 pm

HansHill wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 5:11 pm

You seem to be in this game longer than I am, i used to lurk the old board and saw you posting there. So why don't we skip one entire round of exchanges and you just tell me what positions within Holocaust Revisionism (HR) equate to Flat Earth (FE) and why, since after all i) you are the one asserting it and ii) this is what you are so eager to tell me anyway?

I'll be eagerly reading between website blackouts.

I said so, right here

bombsaway wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 5:45 pm

Nevertheless all this is a diversion from the point that I'm making which is the similarity of revisionists and flat earthers in terms of asserting historical realities with no positive evidence. In both cases, the mainstream story is deemed impossible, therefore, in process of elimination fashion, these events must have occurred. For flat earthers, this is a mass cover up of flat earth by scientific and governmental institutions, for revisionists this is mass resettlement / coverup / plus conspiracy to fabricate evidence (witnesses and documents and archeological studies).

The no positive evidence thing becomes starkly obvious when you compare your beliefs about mass resettlement or whatever to other resettlements (or even "Events" in general as asserted in history). You can't use process of elimination as the basis of such assertions. Flat Earthers don't have evidence of a cover up, but it MUST exist because of other factors.

It seems you are attempting to make a really awkward pivot to WDTG posting even though it doesn't really fit.

Flat Earth is not reality a "historical" position. It's a scientific one. And Flat Earthers wouldn't agree that there's "no evidence" for their position. They claim that they have evidence. So it becomes a matter of specific arguments and interpretations.

Why you guys want to talk about Flat Earth all the time instead of simply proving the Holocaust is beyond me.

Yes they believe in an ongoing conspiracy/conspiracies to cover up evidence of the flat earth / fabricate evidence of spherical earth, dating back many decades (therefore history), just like how you believe in an ongoing and historical conspiracy/conspiracies to cover up evidence of resettlement / fabricate evidence of gassing etc.

What is the evidence flat earthers have for the conspiracy they believe in?

HansHill wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 5:11 pm

bombsaway wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 11:30 pm Sticking to the thread topic, what's a comparable event to *mass resettlement* that has been accepted in history? Select one and then we can compare the evidence to what you have for the thing you believe in. I will show you that it is closer to flat earth theory than accepted history.

You seem to be in this game longer than I am, i used to lurk the old board and saw you posting there. So why don't we skip one entire round of exchanges and you just tell me what positions within Holocaust Revisionism (HR) equate to Flat Earth (FE) and why, since after all i) you are the one asserting it and ii) this is what you are so eager to tell me anyway?

I'll be eagerly reading between website blackouts.

Here's what I recall from prior conversations with bombs about this.

1) He thinks that you are not allowed to make historical claims without "direct" evidence. He thinks this is some sort of absolute rule in history.

Comment: He is not able to define what he means by "direct." It is false in any case. This rule of his is something he made up himself. Often you can safely conclude things based on deduction for example or other "indirect" means. In some cases, it might be reasonable to argue that if X is sufficiently large scale that we should expect commensurate evidence for it. But revisionists make those sorts of arguments as well.

2) He thinks it is impossible for "mass" migrations to occur without abundant documentation. (Note that this sort of principle is also vague and ill-defined.)

Comment: The most common proof of migration is that the people are subsequently in a new place. We can do this with Jews rather trivially in the sense that it sure doesn't seem like Jews have been exterminated given that their influence got a substantial boost after the war and they managed to found and populate a new ethnostate. There often is not detailed documentation of every step of migration. This "principle" is obviously false going back in history (many major migrations were totally unknown and have only recently been confirmed, indirectly, via testing of ancient DNA samples). So he will usually pivot to saying it's impossible in modern times. I have pointed out to him before that in fact this phenomenon is so common today that we have the term "undocumented migrant" to refer to it. His response to this is to Google government statistics that supposedly track illegals. Then I say, well, they claim to track it and do so voluntarily. The accuracy of these numbers has been debated and either way you are completely reliant on whatever the government says. If the government stats are unreliable, then you don't know. Multiple times I have raised points with him about how Jewish demographics present a number of distinct challenges and uncertainties and he has never responded to these points.

3) He is not bothered in the slightest about all the missing documentation on his side (like the standing order they had at each of the AR camps for daily delivery of tons of seasoned firewood). In seems that in this case "direct evidence" is suddenly not necessary.

4) I have got him to admit before that proving survival is not necessary.

Me: Let me put it this way. Suppose revisionists were to uncover some smoking gun evidence that proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the gas chambers were a hoax. Would you accept that conclusion? Or no because we must produce evidence of resettlement to whatever arbitrary standard you insist upon?

bombsaway: Of course I would accept it. And in that case the fate of the resettled Jews would be an unknown, with room speculate about, similar to what you see with historians and the 9th legion.

For the hundredth time, I'm not making an argument by elimination. No matter how bad revisionist arguments are, or how weak their hypothesis is, belief in the orthodox position should independent of this, and rather based on positive evidence. I'm just asking you what you believe happened, and what historians should believe happened. A question mark, or something more firm like what Callahan or Nazgul assert? Once you answer this question we can think about what the implications for revisionism are.

bombsaway wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 6:06 pm

Archie wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 6:05 pm

bombsaway wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 5:19 pm

I said so, right here



The no positive evidence thing becomes starkly obvious when you compare your beliefs about mass resettlement or whatever to other resettlements (or even "Events" in general as asserted in history). You can't use process of elimination as the basis of such assertions. Flat Earthers don't have evidence of a cover up, but it MUST exist because of other factors.

It seems you are attempting to make a really awkward pivot to WDTG posting even though it doesn't really fit.

Flat Earth is not reality a "historical" position. It's a scientific one. And Flat Earthers wouldn't agree that there's "no evidence" for their position. They claim that they have evidence. So it becomes a matter of specific arguments and interpretations.

Why you guys want to talk about Flat Earth all the time instead of simply proving the Holocaust is beyond me.

Yes they believe in an ongoing conspiracy/conspiracies to cover up evidence of the flat earth / fabricate evidence of spherical earth, dating back many decades (therefore history), just like how you believe in an ongoing and historical conspiracy/conspiracies to cover up evidence of resettlement / fabricate evidence of gassing etc.

What is the evidence flat earthers have for the conspiracy they believe in?

We have a prior Flat Earth thread here:
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=368

I gave my thoughts about it in that thread. My impression is that most of their arguments are scientific in nature, not historical. I do not have any interesting in looking into it further.

Archie wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 6:42 pm 1) He thinks that you are not allowed to make historical claims without "direct" evidence. He thinks this is some sort of absolute rule in history.

Comment: He is not able to define what he means by "direct." It is false in any case. This rule of his is something he made up himself. Often you can safely conclude things based on deduction for example or other "indirect" means. In some cases, it might be reasonable to argue that if X is sufficiently large scale that we should expect commensurate evidence for it. But revisionists make those sorts of arguments as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_evidence

Here you go. So eg, saying that prior plans existed, is not direct evidence that they were resettled. The Korherr report is direct evidence of population movement I guess, your only piece of such evidence, but it is a highly problematic document that revisionists widely take issue with. You can make whatever claims you want, but it is true that in history (let's limit to past 2000 years) mass events are not asserted without direct evidence, and now the ball is in your court to show otherwise.

bombsaway wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 6:04 pmI don't think we can say definitively how much ash is in there, but it would be silly to expect the Nazis to have distributed trace amounts of ash across an enormous quantity of crematory mixture.

Sorry, are you making a distinction between 'ash' and 'crematory mixture', here? I think for our purposes, we could treat them as one-in-the-same, unless we're talking about human-to-wood ash ratios. In any case trace amounts across a large area is exactly what we would expect from occasional, sporadic burials. What we are missing -- and what should be there if your position were true -- is astronomical graves with millions' of dead Jews' worth of corpse ash accompanied by about 50x as much wood ash (required to cremate them). Instead, we find not one-tenth this amount -- not one one-hundredth. The amount we find aligns well with epidemic corpse and property disposal as ghettos were cleared, at most, and not at all with your fantasy 'extermination' claims.

Callafangers wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 9:13 pm

bombsaway wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 6:04 pmI don't think we can say definitively how much ash is in there, but it would be silly to expect the Nazis to have distributed trace amounts of ash across an enormous quantity of crematory mixture.

Sorry, are you making a distinction between 'ash' and 'crematory mixture', here? I think for our purposes, we could treat them as one-in-the-same, unless we're talking about human-to-wood ash ratios. In any case trace amounts across a large area is exactly what we would expect from occasional, sporadic burials. What we are missing -- and what should be there if your position were true -- is astronomical graves with millions' of dead Jews' worth of corpse ash accompanied by about 50x as much wood ash (required to cremate them). Instead, we find not one-tenth this amount -- not one one-hundredth. The amount we find aligns well with epidemic corpse and property disposal as ghettos were cleared, at most, and not at all with your fantasy 'extermination' claims.

The ash was mixed with sand. Kola distinguished between "body ash" and "charcoal" which would be the wood ash remains. Many graves don't contain charcoal.

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... camps.html

I don't know where you are getting trace amounts from this. Why don't you quote from the actual studies. Kola found thousands of cubic meters of crematory layers. While it's possible these layers were like 1/1000th human ash, I don't see why the Nazis would have done this.

bombsaway wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 7:11 pm

Archie wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 6:42 pm 1) He thinks that you are not allowed to make historical claims without "direct" evidence. He thinks this is some sort of absolute rule in history.

Comment: He is not able to define what he means by "direct." It is false in any case. This rule of his is something he made up himself. Often you can safely conclude things based on deduction for example or other "indirect" means. In some cases, it might be reasonable to argue that if X is sufficiently large scale that we should expect commensurate evidence for it. But revisionists make those sorts of arguments as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_evidence

Here you go. So eg, saying that prior plans existed, is not direct evidence that they were resettled. The Korherr report is direct evidence of population movement I guess, your only piece of such evidence, but it is a highly problematic document that revisionists widely take issue with. You can make whatever claims you want, but it is true that in history (let's limit to past 2000 years) mass events are not asserted without direct evidence, and now the ball is in your court to show otherwise.

That link does NOT support your claim that historical conclusions can only be based on "direct" evidence. It is not about historical method at all.

In law, a body of facts that directly supports the truth of an assertion without intervening inference. It is often exemplified by eyewitness testimony,[1][2] which consists of a witness's description of their reputed direct sensory experience of an alleged act without the presentation of additional facts.[3][1] By contrast, circumstantial evidence can help prove via inference whether an assertion is true,[4] such as forensics presented by an expert witness.

Historians rely on "intervening inference" all the time.

The direct/indirect distinction does not even correspond to strength of evidence. Witness testimony is the most "direct," yet it is generally the weakest form of evidence.

bombsaway wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 9:29 pm

Callafangers wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 9:13 pm

bombsaway wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 6:04 pmI don't think we can say definitively how much ash is in there, but it would be silly to expect the Nazis to have distributed trace amounts of ash across an enormous quantity of crematory mixture.

Sorry, are you making a distinction between 'ash' and 'crematory mixture', here? I think for our purposes, we could treat them as one-in-the-same, unless we're talking about human-to-wood ash ratios. In any case trace amounts across a large area is exactly what we would expect from occasional, sporadic burials. What we are missing -- and what should be there if your position were true -- is astronomical graves with millions' of dead Jews' worth of corpse ash accompanied by about 50x as much wood ash (required to cremate them). Instead, we find not one-tenth this amount -- not one one-hundredth. The amount we find aligns well with epidemic corpse and property disposal as ghettos were cleared, at most, and not at all with your fantasy 'extermination' claims.

The ash was mixed with sand. Kola distinguished between "body ash" and "charcoal" which would be the wood ash remains. Many graves don't contain charcoal.

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... camps.html

I don't know where you are getting trace amounts from this. Why don't you quote from the actual studies. Kola found thousands of cubic meters of crematory layers. While it's possible these layers were like 1/1000th human ash, I don't see why the Nazis would have done this.

Yes, and you think they were able to perfectly separate the two types of ash, and you think the reason there very little wood ash is that they used liquid fuels in lieu of wood to cremate the bodies. We pointed out to you that this is totally wrong, but you don't seem to care.

edit: I'm not going to get into this with you again since you proved yourself to be hopeless on this topic.

Archie wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 9:30 pm

bombsaway wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 7:11 pm

Archie wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 6:42 pm 1) He thinks that you are not allowed to make historical claims without "direct" evidence. He thinks this is some sort of absolute rule in history.

Comment: He is not able to define what he means by "direct." It is false in any case. This rule of his is something he made up himself. Often you can safely conclude things based on deduction for example or other "indirect" means. In some cases, it might be reasonable to argue that if X is sufficiently large scale that we should expect commensurate evidence for it. But revisionists make those sorts of arguments as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_evidence

Here you go. So eg, saying that prior plans existed, is not direct evidence that they were resettled. The Korherr report is direct evidence of population movement I guess, your only piece of such evidence, but it is a highly problematic document that revisionists widely take issue with. You can make whatever claims you want, but it is true that in history (let's limit to past 2000 years) mass events are not asserted without direct evidence, and now the ball is in your court to show otherwise.

That link does NOT support your claim that historical conclusions can only be based on "direct" evidence. It is not about historical method at all.

In law, a body of facts that directly supports the truth of an assertion without intervening inference. It is often exemplified by eyewitness testimony,[1][2] which consists of a witness's description of their reputed direct sensory experience of an alleged act without the presentation of additional facts.[3][1] By contrast, circumstantial evidence can help prove via inference whether an assertion is true,[4] such as forensics presented by an expert witness.

Historians rely on "intervening inference" all the time.

The direct/indirect distinction does not even correspond to strength of evidence. Witness testimony is the most "direct," yet it is generally the weakest form of evidence.

Historical conclusions about mass events in the past 1000 years or whatever ALWAYS follow this pattern. That's why I said if your claims become accepted, this would be a singular occurrence.

Archie wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 9:33 pm

bombsaway wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 9:29 pm

Callafangers wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 9:13 pm
Sorry, are you making a distinction between 'ash' and 'crematory mixture', here? I think for our purposes, we could treat them as one-in-the-same, unless we're talking about human-to-wood ash ratios. In any case trace amounts across a large area is exactly what we would expect from occasional, sporadic burials. What we are missing -- and what should be there if your position were true -- is astronomical graves with millions' of dead Jews' worth of corpse ash accompanied by about 50x as much wood ash (required to cremate them). Instead, we find not one-tenth this amount -- not one one-hundredth. The amount we find aligns well with epidemic corpse and property disposal as ghettos were cleared, at most, and not at all with your fantasy 'extermination' claims.

The ash was mixed with sand. Kola distinguished between "body ash" and "charcoal" which would be the wood ash remains. Many graves don't contain charcoal.

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... camps.html

I don't know where you are getting trace amounts from this. Why don't you quote from the actual studies. Kola found thousands of cubic meters of crematory layers. While it's possible these layers were like 1/1000th human ash, I don't see why the Nazis would have done this.

Yes, and you think they were able to perfectly separate the two types of ash, and you think the reason there very little wood ash is that they used liquid fuels in lieu of wood to cremate the bodies. We pointed out to you that this is totally wrong, but you don't seem to care.

If they burned the bodies on top of wood, then yeah they would be able to separate them out to some degree. We've debated the primary "combustant" question, I think that's unclear - "wrong" is your supposition.