Forensic experts prove extermination ...
Roberto Muehlenkamp

Munich, Germany

#705 Jun 11, 2008
>Just one grave Roberta.

>Just one percent.

>Physical evidence Roberta.

OK, prick, let’s look at records of the physical evidence pertaining to the mass graves that are included in Prof. Kola’s publication.

First, the maps of the graves area, the plan of the archaeological probing drills and the figures showing the plans and sections of the mass graves: you find the respective links under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/20... .

Second, the schematic representations of some of the core drills and descriptions of the contents of some of the mass graves: you find the respective links or quotes under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/20... .

Third, further descriptions of the mass graves’ contents, which you find under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/20... .

And now bigmouth Gerdes will explain why on earth there descriptions, plans, sections and schematic representations should be seen as anything <other> than an accurate and rather detailed documentation of the physical evidence they describe, apt for introducing that evidence at a criminal trial.

Your explanation, Gerdes?

As to quantification of the remains, I'm still waiting for Gerdes to explain the relevance of this demand. For the only thing that reasonably matters here is whether the 21,310 cubic meters of mass grave space estimated by Kola on the basis of his core drills, assuming the likely relative distribution between human ashes, wood ashes and soil that can be expected (considering my calculations under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/20... of the mass of human bodies incinerated and the required amounts of wood), are compatible with the burning of ca. 434,000 corpses at Belzec.

That this is so I have demonstrated in part 4.5 of my article under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/20... , where I concluded that

«…the victims’ ash and the wood ash together would have taken up 1,519 + 3,574 = 5,093 or 1,519 + 7,148 = 8,667 cubic meters of volume, i.e. less than 24 % or less than 41 % of the grave volume of 21,310 cubic meters».
Roberto Muehlenkamp

Munich, Germany

#706 Jun 11, 2008
>No Roberta, I want to know what Shermer's "findings" were from his alleged "testing of the >claims" at Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka. I want to know what "tests" he conducted.

>Shermer:

[snip yet another repetition of Gerdes’ Shermer blah, blah, blah]

Hey Gerdes, why are you again repeating the silly babbling that I already responded to?

Didn’t you read my post # 693 under http://www.topix.com/forum/history/T1V7A87T8P... ?

If not, read it and respond to the very simple questions I asked you therein. All you have to do is provide the page numbers from Shermer’s "Denying History".

Or are you afraid of being again shown up as a liar if you do?

That would be a reasonable concern on your part.
Roberto Muehlenkamp

Munich, Germany

#707 Jun 11, 2008
>Roberta,

>Show me the physical evidence that proves the claim that kola's grave # 10 really does have a >volume of 2,100 m3, and that it contains the remains of at least 80,000 jews.

>How about just one percent of the alleged remains?

>Just one percent Roberta.

>What we're looking for Roberta, is just one grave that you can prove exists that contains just one percent of the alleged mass murder at Belzec.

>Just one grave Roberta.

>Just one percent.

>One.

>Roberta:

>"Finally, Part 5... thrashes Mattogno’s ridiculous attempts to put together another explanation >for the mass graves found by Kola and his team than the mass murder of hundreds of >thousands of people."

>What "huge mass graves" Roberta?

>Better yet, just prove that grave # 10 exists. Tell us the EXACT dimensions and EXACT volume >M3 and tell us EXACTLY how you came to these EXACT FIGURES. Then tell us EXACTLY how >many jews are buried in grave # 10 and tell us EXACTLY how you came to that number.

>Pretty simple archeological stuff Roberta.

>REAL SIMPLE.

The one more or less reasonable request in all this babbling is that for information about the dimensions and volume of grave # 10, so I'll quote Prof. Kola’s description of this grave in his report, as I already did in Part 3 of my article under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/20... :

«The grave pit No 10 (Fig 27)
One of the biggest graves, in bottom view of a rectangular shape with the size of about 24,00 x 18,00 m. Situated in the north-central part of ha XV, basing on 16 deep drills (No 482-490, 494, 496-499, 501, 520); in some neighbourhood, much more shallow drills (with the ground bottom of about 1,50 m) crematory remains were reported. The grave was very deep (the drills in particular places were stopped at the depth of 4,25 to 5,20 m, because of bodies in wax-fat transformation and underground waters presence). One drill (No 483) at the depth of 4,40 m revealed the appearance of several cm layer of white sand mixed with rich lime. Over body layers there were some levels of crematory remains mixed with charcoal in turn with layers of sandy soil (20 cm). The edge parts of the pit are filled shallow, to the depth of about 1,50 m, probably because of getting some soil to make next layers between the bodies. That fact caused widening of the grave which was filled with next body remains. The estimated volume of the grave amounts about 2100 m3.»

The plan and section of grave # 10 is in part 2 of my article under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/20... :

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c166/cortag...

If Gerdes wants more than the above information, he should first of all explain why he wants more.

Are there any rules or standards of evidence he can show us whereby an archaeologist's description of a mass grave and its contents, and his plan and section of that grave, are not acceptable or not sufficient documentation for evidentiary purposes in criminal investigation or historical research?

Are there any reasons to doubt the accuracy of Prof. Kola’s description and of his plan and section?

If neither of both, why should anyone give a flying fuck about what more spoilt little brat Gerdes claims he wants to see?(Actually he doesn’t want to see anything, as should have become clear from his behavior throughout this discussion.)
Roberto Muehlenkamp

Munich, Germany

#708 Jun 11, 2008
The question how many Jews "EXACTLY" "are buried in grave # 10" is a perfectly idiotic one even by Gerdes' high standards of idiocy, apart from Gerdes not being able to explain what the relevance of this question is supposed to be (some part of the word "relevance" must be too hard for his tiny brain to understand).

It is idiotic because, as Gerdes well knows, nobody ever counted the number of Jews dropped into a specific mass grave, and neither the Polish investigators in 1945 (mentioned in Carlo Mattogno’s Belzec book) nor Prof. Kola quantified the partial remains they found in any of the graves (there would have been no point in doing so anyway, as the human remains were mixed with wood ashes and soil and any calculation of how many burned human bodies corresponded to the remains found in a specific grave would have been but a wild guess).

What can be done is to establish how many dead bodies could have fit into a given mass grave before the bodies were extracted and burned. In part 4.1 of my article under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/20... I concluded that the 21,310 cubic meters of burial space estimated by Kola could, considering the expectable age and sex composition of the deportees to Belzec and their malnourished state, have taken in 319,650 corpses – if they had been thrown in there all at once. That would be about 31,500 corpses for the 2100 m3 of grave # 10.

Of course the corpses were not all thrown in at once, but a grave took several days or weeks to be filled, depending on how many deportees arrived in a given period. So by the time the upper layers of corpses were introduced into the grave, the lower layers would already have considerably shrunk in volume due to natural decomposition and the effect of quicklime that was poured onto each layer of bodies.

Furthermore, as mentioned in part 4.1 of my article under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/20... , there is evidence to the SS having practiced "top down" – burning of the corpses in the mass graves, the obvious purpose of which would have been to stretch each grave's capacity and make the most of the available grave space.

So a higher concentration of bodies in each mass grave was possible – and, as the documentary eyewitness about the number of deportees shows, actually achieved. The 21,310 cubic meters of grave space estimated by Kola could hold the bodies of 434,000 people, thereof ca. 42,800 in the 2,100 cubic meters of grave # 10.

This is not to say that the partial remains of 42,800 people are currently contained in grave # 10, because the SS need not have returned to each grave the amount of human remains corresponding to the number of bodies exhumed from that grave – some of the emptied graves may have received relatively more cremation remains, others relatively less, and a part of the cremation remains, as mentioned by Prof. Kola, was also scattered all over the camp.

So there’s no way of telling, based on the available data, to how many dead bodies the partial remains contained in grave # 10 – or in any other of the 33 Belzec mass graves, for that matter – actually correspond. Any conjecture in this sense is but a wild guess.

And that, again, is the reason why Gerdes question how many Jews "EXACTLY" "are buried in grave # 10", apart from being irrelevant, is a showpiece of Gerdian imbecility.
Greg Gerdes

Missoula, MT

#709 Jun 11, 2008
Let's remind everyone what "physical evidence" Roberta has provided for the "huge mass graves" of Sobibor.

The following is an excerpt from a Reuters Nov., 23, 2001 newswire article titled:

MASS GRAVES FOUND AT NAZI POLISH DEATH CAMP

"We uncovered seven mass graves with an average depth of five meters. In them there were charred human remains and under them remains in a state of decay. That means that in the final stage the victims were burned," archaeologist Andrzej Kola was quoted by the Polish PAP news agency telling a news conference. He said the largest grave measured 70 meters by 25 meters, the others 20 by 25 meters."

Now Roberta, I'm going to make this so simple, even a retard like yourself should be able to answer the following question. Ready? Here goes:

Allegedly, 7 graves, one measuring 70 x 25 x 5 meters and six measuring 20 x 25 x 5 meters, have been located at the alleged "pure extermination center" of Sobibor. It has now been 6 & 1/2 years since this alleged gruesome discovery. The claim is that there are the remains of 1/4 of a million people in those "huge mass graves." So, the question is:

Q - Can you show us a photo of these alleged "huge mass graves?"

Roberta:

"You mean, other than Kola’s statements quoted in that article, his description of the mass graves and their measurements? No, I haven’t"

" I’m not aware of any photograph of this investigation having been published. Nor has a detailed report of this investigation been issued"

"No, I currently can not. Can you explain why the fuck I should"

"Actually I don’t even try, also because I don’t think it matters a damn thing whether or not photos of Kola’s findings have been published"

"Proof that these mass graves exist requires neither a detailed report nor photographs. The brief description by a renowned archaeologist like Kola... is sufficient proof of the existence of these mass graves"

"I’m not aware of a photographic record of physical evidence that is obviously "tangible" enough for an archaeological team to have measured and described it"

"No, asshole, I have no such photograph at my disposal, as I already told you. And it doesn't matter a fucking thing"

"Not that it matters, by the way, but there's at least one photographic illustration of the human remains found during Prof. Kola’s Sobibor excavations:"

http://www.undersobibor.org/excavation09.jpg

Oh that's a good one Roberta. False teeth can hardly be called "human remains" now can they? Nice try.

BTW, which one of the "huge mass graves" did those "human remains" come from Roberta?

Prove that those false teeth came from one of the alleged 7 "huge mass graves.
Greg Gerdes

Missoula, MT

#710 Jun 11, 2008
Let's remind everyone what "physical evidence" Roberta has provided for the "huge mass graves" of Chelmno:

In the Jan./ Feb. 2003 issue of Archaeology Magazine, on Page 50, we find the article:

Remembering Chelmno - Heart-wrenching finds from a Nazi death camp

By Juliet (jew-lie) Golden

In said article we find:

"Between 1941 and 1945, as many as 300,000 adults and children, mostly Polish jews, were executed and cremated here... People said that the Germans had liquidated all traces of the camp and that nothing was left... There is obviously an emotional dimension to the work at Chelmno that is seldom encountered in archaeology. Small fragments of bone catch the sunlight at the forest site where the crematories once stood. "It's one thing to hear about the crematory, it's another to stand inside an enormous pit that is filled with human bones," says Krzysztof Gorczyca, an archaeologist who directed last summer's excavation. "Only then did it occur to me just how many people were murdered here."

And my simple question to Roberta was:

Q - Just where EXACTLY is this "enormous pit that is filled with human bones?"

Roberta:

A - "Why exactly would proof of the mass murder at Chelmno require my being able to give you the exact geographical coordinates of the pit in question? It's obviously inside the area of former Chelmno extermination camp, that's all we need to know."

However, she has provided us with this "proof:"

1: "Mass Graves:"

A -

http://www.thejewishpress.com/UploadedImages/...

B -

Scroll down to the last photo on this link here:

http://www.zchor.org/extermination/pits.htm

C -

http://www.death-camps.org/occupation/pic/big...

2: "Crematoria:"

http://www.death-camps.org/occupation/pic/che...

3: "Human bones:"

http://www.death-camps.org/occupation/pic/big...
Greg Gerdes

Missoula, MT

#711 Jun 11, 2008
Now, back to Belzec, Grave #10, alleged to be the largest of the "huge mass graves" of Belzec, 2,100 square meters in size and, according to Robin O'Neil, alleged to contain AT LEAST 80,000 bodies.

This is the alleged dimensions of Grave #10 -

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c166/cortag...

And this is the description of Grave #10 by Kola himself:

"Over body layers there were some levels of crematory remains mixed with charcoal in turn with layers of sandy soil (20 cm). The edge parts of the pit are filled shallow, to the depth of about 1,50 m, probably because of getting some soil to make next layers between the bodies. That fact caused widening of the grave which was filled with next body remains. The estimated volume of the grave amounts about 2100 m3"

Now Roberta, can you prove this? Show us the physical evidence that proves this claim.

Just how many bodies / remains = to bodies do you claim have been located in grave #10?

Can you prove that this alleged grave contains so much as a single body?
Greg Gerdes

Missoula, MT

#712 Jun 11, 2008
BTW Roberta, can you provide photographic proof of the Belzec camp?

How about just one photo of the camp Roberta.

Just one photo.

One.
Greg Gerdes

Missoula, MT

#713 Jun 11, 2008
BTW Roberta, how many bore-holes were sunk into Belzec grave # 10?
Greg Gerdes

Missoula, MT

#714 Jun 11, 2008
BTW Roberta, I'm sure it was just an oversight on your part, but don't you want to enter these photos of Belzec:

http://www.deathcamps.org/belzec/photos.html

And Sobibor:

http://www.deathcamps.org/sobibor/photos.html

Into evidence?
Roberto Muehlenkamp

Munich, Germany

#715 Jun 12, 2008
>Let's remind everyone what "physical evidence" Roberta has provided for the "huge mass >graves" of Sobibor.

What, another of Gerdes’ repetitive "recaps", moreover limited to one category of evidence alone and ignoring all other?

Gerdes should consider the possibility that our readers know his "recaps" by heart already and start yawning every time he repeats them. But if he wants to continue being a bore and making a bloody fool of himself, that’s his problem.

>The following is an excerpt from a Reuters Nov., 23, 2001 newswire article titled:

>MASS GRAVES FOUND AT NAZI POLISH DEATH CAMP

>"We uncovered seven mass graves with an average depth of five meters. In them there were >charred human remains and under them remains in a state of decay. That means that in the >final stage the victims were burned," archaeologist Andrzej Kola was quoted by the Polish PAP >news agency telling a news conference. He said the largest grave measured 70 meters by 25 >meters, the others 20 by 25 meters."

Yep, this is a record of Sobibor physical evidence stupidly provided by self-damaging dumb fuck Gerdes himself, who has not been able to explain why an archeologist's report about the findings of an excavation he conducted, however succinct, should be considered a mere allegation requiring photographic or other proof before being accepted as accurate.

[I snip the rest of this "recap", which Gerdes, the bore, has already repeated four times if I counted correctly, and move right away to where Gerdes comes up with a new "argument".]

>"Not that it matters, by the way, but there's at least one photographic illustration of the human >remains found during Prof. Kola’s Sobibor excavations:"

> http://www.undersobibor.org/excavation09.jpg

>Oh that's a good one Roberta. False teeth can >hardly be called "human remains" now can they? >Nice try.

Again trying to be smart and thereby showing that you're not the sharpest tool in the shed, aren’t you, Gerdes?

False teeth are human remains in the sense that they were once in the mouths of human beings and thus leftovers of such human beings. Or can you tell where other than in the mouths of human beings one finds false teeth?

>BTW, which one of the "huge mass graves" did >those "human remains" come from Roberta?

I have no idea, but so what? What exactly is it supposed to matter what mass grave these teeth were in?

>Prove that those false teeth came from one of the alleged 7 "huge mass graves.

I might give it a try by asking the "Under Sobibor" folks, provided that Gerdes can explain the relevance of his request.

Tell us, Gerdes, what exactly is it supposed to matter in which of the mass graves these teeth were found?

You understand the word "relevance", don’t you, Gerdes?

Or is any part of it too hard for your tiny brain to understand?
Roberto Muehlenkamp

Munich, Germany

#716 Jun 12, 2008
>Let's remind everyone what "physical evidence" Roberta has provided for the "huge mass >graves" of Chelmno:

Are you so desperately short of arguments, or why do you bore our readers with another repetition of another of your idiotic "recaps", Mr. Gerdes?

Your babbling in this "reminder" will be ignored insofar as already addressed in my posts # 702 under http://www.topix.com/forum/history/T1V7A87T8P... and # 703 on the current page, in order to avoid boring our readers any more than I expect Gerdes to have bored them already.

>And my simple question to Roberta was:

>Q - Just where EXACTLY is this "enormous pit that is filled with human bones?"

>Roberta:

>A - "Why exactly would proof of the mass murder at Chelmno require my being able to give you >the exact geographical coordinates of the pit in question? It's obviously inside the area of former >Chelmno extermination camp, that's all we need to know."

You answer, Gerdes?

You understand the word "relevance", don’t you?

>However, she has provided us with this "proof:"

>1: "Mass Graves:"

>A -

> http://www.thejewishpress.com/UploadedImages/ ...

>B -

>Scroll down to the last photo on this link here:

> http://www.zchor.org/extermination/pits.htm

>C -

> http://www.death-camps.org/occupation/pic/big ...

>2: "Crematoria:"

> http://www.death-camps.org/occupation/pic/che ...

>3: "Human bones:"

> http://www.death-camps.org/occupation/pic/big ...

What’s the "however" supposed to mean, Gerdes? Mark how I introduced some of the above exhibits in my post # 703:

«But as you bring up the issue, and although I don’t think they are necessary to prove what is proven by what I provided already, here are a few more exhibits, from http://www.death-camps.org/occupation/chelmno... »

And why the quote marks around the word "proof"?

Am I supposed to have presented these photographs stating that they prove anything by themselves? If that's what you’re trying to tell us, you're lying again, because you well know that I consider photographs to be mere illustrations of what becomes apparent from other, more telling evidence, namely archeological or forensic site descriptions as well as documentary and eyewitness evidence (why photographs are supposed to be the only relevant records of physical evidence Gerdes has not even tried to explain, as he has also not even tried to provide a justification for persistently ignoring documentary and eyewitness evidence).

Or are you so afraid of a couple of photographs, which I think have less evidentiary than illustrative value, that you resort to lamely calling into question their authenticity?
Roberto Muehlenkamp

Munich, Germany

#717 Jun 12, 2008
>Now, back to Belzec, Grave #10, alleged to be the largest of the "huge mass graves" of Belzec, >2,100 square meters in size and, according to Robin O'Neil, alleged to contain AT LEAST >80,000 bodies.

>This is the alleged dimensions of Grave #10 -

> http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c166/cortag ...

>And this is the description of Grave #10 by Kola himself:

>"Over body layers there were some levels of crematory remains mixed with charcoal in turn with >layers of sandy soil (20 cm). The edge parts of the pit are filled shallow, to the depth of about >1,50 m, probably because of getting some soil to make next layers between the bodies. That >fact caused widening of the grave which was filled with next body remains. The estimated >volume of the grave amounts about 2100 m3"

>Now Roberta, can you prove this? Show us the physical evidence that proves this claim.

>Just how many bodies / remains = to bodies do you claim have been located in grave #10?

>Can you prove that this alleged grave contains so much as a single body?

In my post # 707 on this thread I wrote the following:

«If Gerdes wants more than the above information, he should first of all explain why he wants more.

Are there any rules or standards of evidence he can show us whereby an archaeologist's description of a mass grave and its contents, and his plan and section of that grave, are not acceptable or not sufficient documentation for evidentiary purposes in criminal investigation or historical research?

Are there any reasons to doubt the accuracy of Prof. Kola’s description and of his plan and section?

If neither of both, why should anyone give a flying fuck about what more spoilt little brat Gerdes claims he wants to see?(Actually he doesn’t want to see anything, as should have become clear from his behavior throughout this discussion.)»

What part of the above was too hard for you to understand, Gerdes?

If you yell for "proof" of what is proven by an archeologist's description and a plan and section drawn by that archeologist, i.e. the size and shape of a former mass grave and it’s containing crematory remains mixed with charcoal and bodies in wax-fat transformation that were hit by the drills, you have to demonstrate the pertinence and relevance of your demand by answering either or both of my above-quoted "Are there" - questions.

If you cannot answer any of these questions, your yelling for "proof" of what is written and shown in an archeological report is no more relevant than a spoilt brat’s yelling for a lollipop.

Got that, Gerdes?
Roberto Muehlenkamp

Munich, Germany

#718 Jun 12, 2008
>BTW Roberta, can you provide photographic proof of the Belzec camp?

>How about just one photo of the camp Roberta.

>Just one photo.

>One.

Not that it matters, as Gerdes has never been able to explain the relevance of his "just one photo" demands, but photos of Belzec and its memorial can be found under the following links:

http://www.death-camps.org/belzec/photos.html
http://www.death-camps.org/belzec/memorialpho...
http://www.death-camps.org/belzec/buildingsit...

One of the photos under the latter link shows "remnants". It must have been things like these, all over the site, that led to a Jewish rabbi's making a fuss in an article available under http://www.hir.org/amcha/belzec.html :

«Rabbis Avi Weiss and Shmuel Herzfeld witnessed first-hand the ongoing desecrations at the Belzec death camp in southeast Poland.

"Our worst fears have been realized," stated a shaken Rabbi Weiss, National President of Amcha - The Coalition for Jewish Concerns. "The utter disregard for the remains of our brothers and sisters is both shameful and inexcusable. The desecrations taking place at Belzec are without parallel."

Rabbis Weiss and Herzfeld arrived early Wednesday morning seeking to determine the extent of the desecrations taking place as a result of the trench being constructed at the site. Rabbi Weiss has long contended that the trench would disturb the ashes and bones of Holocaust victims covering the entire surface of the camp and further disturb the human remains that lie underneath.

Upon entering the camp, the rabbis saw bones strewn throughout the camp, including in the path of the trench.

"There was a large field and throughout this field there were literally bones everywhere. It is very hardto imagine. In fact I was there andI myself couldn't believe it," said Rabbi Herzfeld. "I kept seeing these small white shards which looked to me like they were small stones. But then the archaeologist of the camp came over and toldme that these white pieces were in fact bone shards. I said,'These things are bones, but they are everywhere.' And, he answered me,'Of course, the bones are everywhere in this field.'"»
Roberto Muehlenkamp

Munich, Germany

#719 Jun 12, 2008
>BTW Roberta, how many bore-holes were sunk into Belzec grave # 10?

Not that it matters as your demand is at best an indication of how uncomfortable you feel with Prof. Kola’s findings, but you should have read what I quoted:

«The grave pit No 10 (Fig 27)
One of the biggest graves, in bottom view of a rectangular shape with the size of about 24,00 x 18,00 m. Situated in the north-central part of ha XV, basing on 16 deep drills (No 482-490, 494, 496-499, 501, 520); in some neighbourhood, much more shallow drills (with the ground bottom of about 1,50 m) crematory remains were reported. The grave was very deep (the drills in particular places were stopped at the depth of 4,25 to 5,20 m, because of bodies in wax-fat transformation and underground waters presence). One drill (No 483) at the depth of 4,40 m revealed the appearance of several cm layer of white sand mixed with rich lime. Over body layers there were some levels of crematory remains mixed with charcoal in turn with layers of sandy soil (20 cm). The edge parts of the pit are filled shallow, to the depth of about 1,50 m, probably because of getting some soil to make next layers between the bodies. That fact caused widening of the grave which was filled with next body remains. The estimated volume of the grave amounts about 2100 m3.»
Roberto Muehlenkamp

Munich, Germany

#720 Jun 12, 2008
>BTW Roberta, I'm sure it was just an oversight on your part, but don't you want to enter these >photos of Belzec:

> http://www.deathcamps.org/belzec/photos.html

>And Sobibor:

> http://www.deathcamps.org/sobibor/photos.html

>Into evidence?

No, Gerdes, I can do without photos, as you know very well – just as you cannot explain your idiotic focus on photos and photos alone. I consider photos to have less evidentiary than illustrative value, as a means of illustrating what becomes apparent from other evidence.

But as you asked this stupid question, let’s look at the glaring "oversights" on your part, shall we?

Like your failure to include in the record of evidence the Sobibor documentary and eyewitness evidence listed in my post # 541 under http://www.topix.com/forum/history/T1V7A87T8P... , without having even tried to explain why you persistently ignore documentary and eyewitness evidence.

The same goes for the Belzec documentary and eyewitness evidence quoted or referred to in my Mattogno-Belzec article starting under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/20... , namely
- the diary entries of Wilhelm Cornides,
- the testimonies of Kurt Gersten, Heinrich Gley, Wilhelm Pfannenstiel and Franz Stangl,
- Höfle’s radio report to Heim of 11 January 1943,
- Jäcklein’s report about "Resettlement from Kolomea to Belzec" dated 14 September 1942
- Fritz Reuter's notes of 17 March 1942 about a conversation with Hauptsturmführer Höfle on the previous day
- Goebbels’ diary entry of 27 March 1942
- the reports by the Oberfeldkommandant of Lwow (Lemberg) in March, April and October 1942.

Keep asking silly questions, Gerdes. I love to slap them around your ears.
Greg Gerdes

Missoula, MT

#721 Jun 12, 2008
Now, back to Belzec, Grave #10, alleged to be the largest of the "huge mass graves" of Belzec, 2,100 square meters in size and, according to Robin O'Neil, alleged to contain a combination of AT LEAST 80,000 bodies / remains of cremated bodies.

And this is the description of Grave #10 by Kola himself:

"One of the biggest graves, in bottom view of a rectangular shape with the size of about 24,00 x 18,00 m. Situated in the north-central part of ha XV, basing on 16 deep drills (No 482-490, 494, 496-499, 501, 520); in some neighbourhood, much more shallow drills (with the ground bottom of about 1,50 m) crematory remains were reported. The grave was very deep (the drills in particular places were stopped at the depth of 4,25 to 5,20 m, because of bodies in wax-fat transformation and underground waters presence). One drill (No 483) at the depth of 4,40 m revealed the appearance of several cm layer of white sand mixed with rich lime. Over body layers there were some levels of crematory remains mixed with charcoal in turn with layers of sandy soil (20 cm). The edge parts of the pit are filled shallow, to the depth of about 1,50 m, probably because of getting some soil to make next layers between the bodies. That fact caused widening of the grave which was filled with next body remains. The estimated volume of the grave amounts about 2100 m3."

OK, we have a grave that allegedly has a surface area of 24 x 18 meters (432 m3) and has an alleged total volume of 2,100 m3. And it allegedly looks like this:

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c166/cortag...

Now, this alleged "huge mass grave" was allegedly located by drilling 16 bore holes / core samples. Now Roberta, can you prove this? Show us the physical evidence that proves this claim. Do you have a single photo of the boring of the holes? Do you have a single photo of the core samples? How / who / what lab analysed those core samples? What happened to those core samples? And again, what proof do you have that so much as a single core sample was ever taken at Belzec?

Specificallyk the claim is that the "huge mass grave" contains:

"crematory remains, bodies in wax-fat transformation, the "appearance" of several cm layer of white sand mixed with "rich" lime and over the body layers there were some levels of crematory remains mixed with charcoal in turn with layers of sandy soil."

What proof is there to back up O'Neil's claim that this pit contains at least 80,000 bodies?

Can you prove that this alleged grave contains so much as a single body Roberta?
Greg Gerdes

Missoula, MT

#722 Jun 12, 2008
Q - Roberta, don't you want to enter these photos of Sobibor into evidence?

http://www.deathcamps.org/sobibor/photos.html

Roberta:

"No, Gerdes, I can do without photos"

Now why would Roberta not want to enter into evidence photos of the Sobibor camp itself?

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Roberto Muehlenkamp

Lisbon, Portugal

#723 Jun 13, 2008
>Now, back to Belzec, Grave #10, alleged to be the largest of the "huge mass graves" of >Belzec, 2,100 square meters in size and, according to Robin O'Neil, alleged to contain a >combination of AT LEAST 80,000 bodies / remains of cremated bodies.

>And this is the description of Grave #10 by Kola himself:

[...]

>OK, we have a grave that allegedly has a surface area of 24 x 18 meters (432 m3) and has an >alleged total volume of 2,100 m3. And it allegedly looks like this:

> http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c166/cortag ...

>Now, this alleged "huge mass grave" was allegedly located by drilling 16 bore holes / core >samples. Now Roberta, can you prove this? Show us the physical evidence that proves this >claim. Do you have a single photo of the boring of the holes? Do you have a single photo of >the core samples? How / who / what lab analysed those core samples? What happened to >those core samples? And again, what proof do you have that so much as a single core sample >was ever taken at Belzec?

>Specificallyk the claim is that the "huge mass grave" contains:

>"crematory remains, bodies in wax-fat transformation, the "appearance" of several cm layer of >white sand mixed with "rich" lime and over the body layers there were some levels of >crematory remains mixed with charcoal in turn with layers of sandy soil."

Again, here’s what I wrote in my post # 707 under http://www.topix.com/forum/history/T1V7A87T8P... :

«If Gerdes wants more than the above information, he should first of all explain why he wants more.

Are there any rules or standards of evidence he can show us whereby an archaeologist's description of a mass grave and its contents, and his plan and section of that grave, are not acceptable or not sufficient documentation for evidentiary purposes in criminal investigation or historical research?

Are there any reasons to doubt the accuracy of Prof. Kola’s description and of his plan and section?

If neither of both, why should anyone give a flying fuck about what more spoilt little brat Gerdes claims he wants to see?(Actually he doesn’t want to see anything, as should have become clear from his behavior throughout this discussion.)»

What part of the above is too hard for your tiny brain to understand, Gerdes?

What criminal court or historian would make your additional demands for "proof" when faced with a detailed archeological report containing descriptions of the mass graves and their contents as well as plans and sections of the mass graves, and according to what rules or standards of evidence you can show us would such demands be justified?

What reasons to doubt the accuracy of Prof. Kola's description of grave # 10 and of the corresponding plan and section can you provide?

Answer my questions, Gerdes. If you can come up with a reasonable answer to at least one of them, I may be compelled to corroborate the contents of Kola's report with further documentation of the physical evidence described therein. Until then, there’s no reason why I should even try accommodating your hysterical demands.

>What proof is there to back up O'Neil's claim that this pit contains at least 80,000 bodies?

I don’t think it can be proven that a given pit at Belzec contains the remains of a given number of bodies, even if all remains are excavated and analyzed. The reason is that the human remains must be wildly mixed with soil and wood ash, making any attempt to calculate the number of bodies they belong to a wild guess. I suggest you (re-)read what I wrote in my post # 708 under http://www.topix.com/forum/history/T1V7A87T8P... .
Roberto Muehlenkamp

Lisbon, Portugal

#724 Jun 13, 2008
>Can you prove that this alleged grave contains so much as a single body Roberta?

Can you provide a single good reason to call in question the accuracy of Kola’s description of this mass grave’s contents, Gerdes?

I don’t think so.

Can you show us any rules or standards of evidence according to which a criminal court or jury, following introduction of Kola’s archeological report as evidence, would call for the prosecution to "prove that this alleged grave contains so much as a single body"?

I don’t think so.

Therefore, do yourself the favor of keeping your puerile, irrelevant demands to yourself. They strongly suggest the desperation of who is frantically trying to put up artificial barriers against evidence he is scared of and cannot deal with.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

History in the News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama is greatest president of our lifet... 17 min Johnny 2,105
News Women's March: Record Number of Women Win in Mi... Nov 8 MGTOW 1
News Nov 7 Flu By 7
News Kavanaugh in memo pushed graphic sex questions ... Nov 5 rider 37
News When a Collision Between Politics and Sex Shock... Nov 1 Trump s Birtherex... 15
News A suspicious package was discovered at CNN's Ne... Oct 27 spud 69
News Hillary Clinton: Bill should "absolutely not" h... Oct 19 Clowns and L... 3