@Dogzilla
Apart from the question if all the bodies were first buried. I thought this wasn't the case at Treblinka. How do you want to prove that there once was/were hole(s). And why do you seem to claim that the (former) presence of these holes has already been disproven? The Krege (non-)report?
The history books tell us that when Treblinka opened for business, they buried the bodies in mass graves inside the camp. They did this until Himmler ordered that the mass graves be destroyed so there won't be any evidence of the crimes. So in the Spring 1943 they opened up the mass graves and began burning the bodies contained within. Jews brought to Treblinka to be gassed after they began burning the bodies were murdered and then taken immediately to the pyre without first being buried.
The size of the mass graves (50x25x10 meters) and the number (5) that are reported by Arad in his exhaustive study of the AR death camps don't provide enough space to contain the seven hundred thousand bodies that are alleged to have been in the ground at the same time. The mass graves would have actually been much larger. But even the smallest estimate of the total volume of the mass graves would require that HUGE pits be dug in the ground. Since all the mass graves were allegedly contained within the 12.3 acres of the 'Totenlager' area of Treblinka, digging them would have resulted in a massive displacement of soil in a very small area.
Never mind that there is no accounting for what happened to the soil when the pits were dug--nobody reports huge piles of dirt next to the pits and nobody reports the dirt being shipped out of the camp. But anyway, the official story is that 1) the pits were dug for the bodies, 2) the bodies were buried, 3) the bodies were dug up and incinerated, 4) the cremains of the victims and the ash from the wood that was used for cremating the bodies were dumped back into the pits that had been the mass graves 5) the mass graves were covered over thereby hiding the evidence of the crime.
The problem is that you can't perform a procedure as invasive as that without leaving a trace. The difference in the density of the soil where the mass graves had been compared to the undisturbed ground surrounding them would create visual anomalies that would be visible to the naked eye. If these anomalies couldn't be seen from the ground, they certainly would be visible from the air.
Any explanation of how the Germans would have been able to cover up the mass graves has been vague and incomplete. A "forensic" examination by the Poles in 1945 didn't find any mass graves. The Poles reported that the site of the camp had been dug up by locals looking for gold and other valuables that were no doubt buried in an attempt to explain the lack of evidence. They didn't properly document their findings and nothing in their report supports the existence of the massive pits.
Since the existence of massive disruptions of soil consistent with gigantic pits in the ground cannot be detected and no explanation has been provided to tell us why they cannot be detected, we must rely on the testimony of survivors and perpetrators for our knowledge of mass graves at Treblinka. The lack of physical evidence where there would necessarily be physical evidence trumps eyewitness testimony here.
The only conclusion given the state of knowledge is that there were never any massive pits in the ground for Treblinka sized mass graves at Treblinka. One way to conclusively prove that these pits exist is through core samples. Using a probe, geologists take samples of the soil as deep as is necessary. Analyzing the soil removed from vartious depths and different locations around the camp could pick up the difference between the undisturbed soil surrounding the pits and the soil/ash/cremains mixed within the pits.
This has always been resisted because of the potential for disturbing the remains buried there. Fortunately, ground penetrating radar would be able to perform the same function as core sample tests. GPR would be easily able to detect the difference between disturbed and undisturbed soil and it can do so without any digging in the ground.
Conducting a GPR survey would give us the evidence needed to prove the existence of the fantastical Treblinka sized mass graves at Treblinka. If GPR cannot pick up evidence of these mass graves today, it will be able to do so in future. The technology keeps getting better and cheaper.
The only GPR survey that has allegedly been conducted is the one you mentioned by Krege. He didn't find anything supporting the story. His results are meaningless though because they've never been published and there's about as much evidence that Richard Krege was even at Treblinka as there is that Rachel Auerbach was there. Not finding evidence of the mass graves doesn't prove they're not there. Dismissing the Krege study as a joke and poking holes in his veracity, methodology, and skills doesn't prove that they are. The way to prove they are there is conducting GPR survey and finding evidence of them.
Why won't anybody look? Don't Guta and Abus deserve an explanation?
