General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II

[MaxMurx]

So where did the Jews who survived the Holocaust go?

To give you an idea: Poland counted all Germans forcefully expelled from former German territory (between 3 - 6 Millions) as "Polish civilian losses of WWII". To produce a "fait accomplit" German property was distributed to Jews. The new Polish governement calculated that Jews were the least likely to be "redistributed" by the victorious Allied Nations. Those Jews according to AJR however adopted Polish names to escape Polish atrocities and were not counted as "Jewish" anymore. That certainly does not explain all losses but is one method to change the portion of a certain population by administrative measures. Also according to AJR all German Jews having emigrated to other countries were denied German citzenship and were counted as "DP" (displaced person) and "stateless" after returning to Germany. Those still in Italy, Hungary, the Netherlands, Denmark and France further were counted as (German) "enemy aliens". None of those were counted as "Jews" anymore.

 

[CaptainHowdy]

Leaving aside your statements on skepticism and the skeptics on this board, here's my problem with your post: You are, apparently, trying to prove both a positive and a negative case. You are trying to build a case against the common historiography, which is all well and good; but you cannot use this case as evidence in favor of your positive hypothesis, because it's not like "the Holocaust never happened" automatically means "the Jews were resettled through Treblinka, Belzec, and Sobibor". Perhaps the two are related, but in your efforts to prove that the cremations are physically impossible, you are leaving aside the fact that voiding the common historiography regarding cremations still leaves a quite convincing case for mass murder on the rest of the documentary, physical, and testimonial evidence, to say nothing of positively proving your case on the resettlement hypothesis. This is why your "negative case" fails - if you wish to completely disprove the Holocaust, you need to deal with the totality of evidence; poking a small hole in one place is not going to collapse the whole collection of data like a house of cards.

I disagree with your implication that the Treblinka, Sobibor, and Belzec narrative being impossible means that "the Holocaust never happened." If the TSB narrative is impossible, It means only that the narrative for those three camps isn't accurate. If the narrative for those three camps isn't accurate, it doesn't mean that the Holocaust didn't happen.

I agree with you, however, that discarding the traditional narrative for those camps doesn't necessarily mean that the transit camp theory is the right one. I don't know how strong the transit camp theory is. There have been some links provided here to support that theory but I haven't had time to follow them yet. But even those who endorse the transit camp theory say that the evidence isn't overwhelmingly persuasive.

Transit theory or not, the problem I'm having here is that the normative extermination theory at Treblinka is sounding more and more ridiculous the more I learn about it. Sebastianus and Nessie have provided unbiased, independent information about carcass disposal and Hindu funeral ghats that are completely at odds with the description of extermination at the death camps. Nobody has presented any information from a independent source that would support the extermination theory. Nobody has shown us any examples of Treblinka level performance on any measure--no open air cremations using similar amounts of wood, no cremations completed as quickly, no mass graves anywhere near the size and density of the Treblinka mass graves, etc. Nobody has been able to explain scientifically how the Treblinka performance was achieved.

The only consistent answer has been to deny the relevance of any sort of comparison or to insist that the laws of physics must be changed to account for demographic mysteries. The Muhlenkamp essay is the only document that anybody has pointed to in support of the Treblinka thesis. The problem there is that it's geared more towards tearing down specific revisionist arguments than presenting a compelling argument in favor of extermination. He also destroys his credibility with dubious science and assumptions about what might've been done to achieve the results the Nazis achieved. The argument that what the Nazis did would work if they did something different isn't an argument.

I don't know exactly what happened to the Jews who were sent to Treblinka. But, as I said up thread, I don't have a problem saying I don't know what happened. I do have a problem saying that I know exactly what happened when that explanation is as absurd as the Treblinka narrative is.

 

[MaxMurx]

To give you an idea: Poland counted all Germans forcefully expelled from former German territory (between 3 - 6 Millions) as "Polish civilian losses of WWII". To produce a "fait accomplit" German property was distributed to Jews. The new Polish governement calculated that Jews were the least likely to be "redistributed" by the victorious Allied Nations. Those Jews according to AJR however adopted Polish names to escape Polish atrocities and were not counted as "Jewish" anymore. That certainly does not explain all losses but is one method to change the portion of a certain population by administrative measures. Also according to AJR all German Jews having emigrated to other countries were denied German citzenship and were counted as "DP" (displaced person) and "stateless" after returning to Germany. Those still in Italy, Hungary, the Netherlands, Denmark and France further were counted as (German) "enemy aliens". None of those were counted as "Jews" anymore.

AJR: Association of Jewish Refugees

http://www.ajr.org.uk/pdfjournals

 

[MaxMurx]

Some final questions: If you would be member of a jury during a court trial, would you vote for the legend of Treblinka/Sobibor/Belzec extermination and post hoc open air cremations being established beyond any reasonable doubt? If no: What would you recommend?

 

[Matthew Ellard]

Body Volume

Let's leave aside the fact that the number of 26,000 bodies was based on the absurd exercise of treating human bodies as though they were a liquid.

No let's not set that aside. Let's use the standard volume of a human being which is 0.07 square meters.

Reading comprehension is fundamental, Matthew. Go reread my posts and figure out what I actually said.

Now, at 0.3 cubic meters per Jew, the largest pit's alleged volume of 1,768 cubic meters could hold just under 5,900 Jews

You over estimated the volume of a human body by almost 500%. Just admit you were wrong.


Human remains at 7.5 metres

we have yet another case of Matthew's inability to understand what he reads. The figure of 7.5 meters mentioned by Judge Łukaszkiewicz concerned not pits, but one pit only. Moreover, Judge Łukaszkiewicz identified that pit as a bomb crater, having diameter 25 meters and depth 6 meters. In fact he says that it was........

You edited out the part of his quote where Łukaszkiewicz clearly states his team excavated further to 7.5 metres. He found that the human remains went down to 7.5 meters. That was the point. Are you pretending a bomb "introduced mixed human ash and sand" into the walls of the pit at 7.5 metres on its own although its crater was only 6 meters deep??

its walls give recognizable evidence of the presence of a large quantity of ashes as well as human remains – was further excavated in order to discover the depth of the pit in this part of the camp. Numerous human remains were found by these excavations, partially still in a state of decomposition. The soil consists of ashes interspersed with sand, is of a dark gray color and granulous in form. During the excavations, the soil gave off an intense odor of burning and decay. At a depth of 7.5 meters the bottom was reached, which consisted of layers of unmixed sand. At this point the digging was stopped here.


Treblinka Gold Rush

And yes, we do know that the bombing was done by the Soviets, not the Germans.

No. We know it was done by the locals and some soviet soldiers. I attach their photo to this post standing in front of a row of skulls during the Treblinka Gold Rush. I have placed a link here for further reading.
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-arts-and-culture/books/99982/the-treblinka-gold-rush



"Forget the Children and other pits"

Finally, it does not appear to have dawned on Matthew that in view of the orthodox Treblinka story, 26,000 is not a very impressive number.

1) 26,000 is based on a 4 metre depth minimum. Colls said "minimum" based on GPR. Łukaszkiewicz found human ash at 7.5 metes when he excavated.
2) You keep ignoring that children were also buried.
3) You keep ignoring that not all victims were buried and some were cremated after gassing without being buried. You even agreed with me and offered a lower figure of 715,000.
4) You keep ignoring all the other pits volume and that other pits have yet to be located. That's why Colls is going back to Treblinka in 2014 to finish the survey.
Caroline Colls "Also with the topographic survey we’ve demonstrated that the camp as it’s marked currently on the ground by the modern memorial was actually much larger",

 

[Matthew Ellard]

So where did the Jews who survived the Holocaust go?

Can you be a little more specific?
Do you mean victims released from camps after liberation, or civilians who left their countries to escape persecution during the holocaust, or something else?

 

[Matthew Ellard]

there is the nearby Malkinia railway junction. Did it function as a transit point or camp?

Mallkinia had no watch towers and was a camp for non-German Waffen SS in late 42.

MiG Ia, Bericht ueber den Stand der Organisation und Ausbildung der Ostlegionen, H.Qu, den 10.8.42

Sonderlager Malkinia

Malkinia
Turk 734
Aserb 895
Georg. 1065
Arm. 778
Nordk. -
Versch. 139
Summe 3631

 

[Loss Leader]

Nobody has presented any information from a independent source that would support the extermination theory. Nobody has shown us any examples of Treblinka level performance on any measure--no open air cremations using similar amounts of wood, no cremations completed as quickly, no mass graves anywhere near the size and density of the Treblinka mass graves, etc.

And nobody has ever been able to show even one single instance of a 110-story steel tower collapsing due to kerosene fire.

I'm sorry, but so what? The Nazis were the only people in history to try to systematically exterminate millions. Why should anyone have evidence of mass cremations as large or as careless as the Nazis? Why should mass graves exist anywhere? The fact that it was unprecedented doesn't negate the fact that it happened.

Some final questions: If you would be member of a jury during a court trial, would you vote for the legend of Treblinka/Sobibor/Belzec extermination and post hoc open air cremations being established beyond any reasonable doubt? If no: What would you recommend?

Yes.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

....if the Jews known to have been delivered to Treblinka weren't burried at Treblinka, logically they must have gone somewhere.

As elements of this discussion is maths based I thought I'd determine what percentage of Treblinka's land would need to be burial pits.

* Treblinka II Camp = 17 Hectares or 170,000 square metres.
* An adult body (ignoring children) has a volume of 0.07 cubic metres
* Assume that 700,000 adults (ignoring children) were buried prior to Dec42
* Assume that pits are 7 metres deep

1) 700,000(people) x 0.07(cubic metres) = 49,000 cubic metres.
2) 49,000 cubic metres divided by 7 metres depth = 7,000 square metres.
3) 7,000 square metres is only 4.11% of 170,000 square metres.

4.11% is not very much land. It would be less if we account for children. It would be more if pits were shallower. There seems to be no problem with burying the bodies at Treblinka. Ms Colls is working on finding the rest of the pits.

Caroline Colls / "I really hope this is the first stage in a long-term programme to seek out those hidden graves of the Holocaust"

 

[CaptainHowdy]

Can you be a little more specific?
Do you mean victims released from camps after liberation, or civilians who left their countries to escape persecution during the holocaust, or something else?

I mean the Jews from Germany, one of Germany's allies, or a land that was occupied by German forces during the war. Basically any Jew who survived living under the Nazis. They wouldn't necessary have been in a camp. Jews who fled countries that were occupied by Germany would count if they fled after the Nazi occupation. So, for example, a Polish Jew who was locked up in a camp during the war and was liberated by the Allies would be a survivor. A Polish Jew who lived undetected in Poland throughout the German occupation would be a survivor. A Polish Jew who fled Poland after the German invasion would be a survivor. A Polish Jew who left Poland before the German occupation would not be a survivor. Where did those Jews who survived the war go?

 

[CaptainHowdy]

Would you accept an explanation with so many assumptions? That is a question I would like you to answer.

You make hundreds, maybe thousands, of assumptions everyday whenever you make any sort of a decision. Thinking of Sebastianus' assumptions as "parameters" might be more helpful.

 

[Loss Leader]

I mean the Jews from Germany, one of Germany's allies, or a land that was occupied by German forces during the war. Basically any Jew who survived living under the Nazis. They wouldn't necessary have been in a camp. Jews who fled countries that were occupied by Germany would count if they fled after the Nazi occupation. So, for example, a Polish Jew who was locked up in a camp during the war and was liberated by the Allies would be a survivor. A Polish Jew who lived undetected in Poland throughout the German occupation would be a survivor. A Polish Jew who fled Poland after the German invasion would be a survivor. A Polish Jew who left Poland before the German occupation would not be a survivor. Where did those Jews who survived the war go?

Just for a little perspective: before the Nazi occupation, there were 50,000 Jews in Warsaw. After the war, there were 50.

The answer to your question is: everywhere. They went everywhere. Some ended up behind the iron curtain, some emigrated to Israel. There was a movement in the US to bring survivors here, especially relatives of American Jews. There was a Jewish community in Hong Kong. There was a movie made about Jews who fled to Africa. Canada, France, England - everybody went everywhere.

Not sure what you're asking, really.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

I mean the Jews from Germany, one of Germany's allies, or a land that was occupied by German forces during the war. Basically any Jew who survived living under the Nazis. They wouldn't necessary have been in a camp. Jews who fled countries that were occupied by Germany would count if they fled after the Nazi occupation. So, for example, a Polish Jew who was locked up in a camp during the war and was liberated by the Allies would be a survivor. A Polish Jew who lived undetected in Poland throughout the German occupation would be a survivor. A Polish Jew who fled Poland after the German invasion would be a survivor. A Polish Jew who left Poland before the German occupation would not be a survivor. Where did those Jews who survived the war go?

It's simply too broad a question. It would be like asking where did all the Irish in the potato famine go. They went to lots of different places. I know that post war Australia took 8,000 Jews from the European DP camps. I first saw a tattoo in the late 60's on a bloke selling us school shoes. My mother explained what it was.

Does this help you as a starting point?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Displaced_persons_camp

 

[Matthew Ellard]

You make hundreds, maybe thousands, of assumptions everyday whenever you make any sort of a decision. Thinking of Sebastianus' assumptions as "parameters" might be more helpful.

I have offered you parameters for burials at Treblinka that indicate that only 4.11% of the camp land area could accommodate 700,000 bodies. Are you still in the mind that burial at Treblinka II was impossible? Please show me your mathematics that indicate it was impossible.

 

[Nessie]

Mallkinia had no watch towers and was a camp for non-German Waffen SS in late 42.

MiG Ia, Bericht ueber den Stand der Organisation und Ausbildung der Ostlegionen, H.Qu, den 10.8.42

Sonderlager Malkinia

Malkinia
Turk 734
Aserb 895
Georg. 1065
Arm. 778
Nordk. -
Versch. 139
Summe 3631

Thanks. After reading denier/revisionist work on "Treblinka" it seems to me there is a lot of misrepresentation going on. For example, conflating Treblinka the work camp with T II and the claims T II was a transit camp whilst never referring to Malkinia as a major hub ideal for transit onwards to the East, as their narrative tries to claim.

http://codoh.com/library/document/1652

"On July 31, 1942, one week after the opening of Treblinka, the Reichskommissar for White Russia, Wilhelm Kube, excitedly objected to Reichskomissar for the Eastern territories Heinrich Lohse against the transportation of 1,000 Jews from Warsaw to Minsk, on the grounds that these Jews represented a danger as potential carriers of epidemics and as supporters of the partisans. At that time all deported Jews from Warsaw arrived in Treblinka, so that those 1,000 Jews must have been sent through that camp to Minsk. This one transport already is enough to shake the foundations of the story of the "pure extermination camp," in which every Jew except for a handful of "work Jews" was immediately murdered. Whoever objects that this transport is merely an exception must ask himeself how many other such "exceptions" existed."

Which Treblinka? What about Malkinia? It is ironic that the orthodox history is dismissed as wrong because "This total confusion is of course quite embarrassing for the historians" when they exhibit the same confusion.

 

[Nessie]

You make hundreds, maybe thousands, of assumptions everyday whenever you make any sort of a decision. Thinking of Sebastianus' assumptions as "parameters" might be more helpful.

No they are assumptions and estimates as stated by him and the sources he uses from denier/revisionists.

Everyday decisions should not be equated with evidencing a case.

 

[Nessie]

Some final questions: If you would be member of a jury during a court trial, would you vote for the legend of Treblinka/Sobibor/Belzec extermination and post hoc open air cremations being established beyond any reasonable doubt? If no: What would you recommend?

I would yes, proven. The area of dispute is over the numbers of dead but even one train load of Jews gassed and then cremated proves a Holocaust.

 

[MaxMurx]

I would yes, proven. The area of dispute is over the numbers of dead but even one train load of Jews gassed and then cremated proves a Holocaust.

You have not answered my question. I did not ask if the HOLOCAUST is established beyond any reasonable doubt. I was very specifically asking if the details discussed here about TREBLINKA/SOBIBOR/BELZEC are established beyond any reasonable doubt. My opinion is that the discussion alone is proof that there is a lot of reasonable doubt. The problem is that Jewish religious law prevents us from removing that reasonable doubt simply by collecting the necessary evidence.
Nothing against religious laws. What would happen, if the MAFIA in NEW YORK would kill a member of the local Jewish community and dig him in their back yard. Would Jewish Halacha law prohibit law enforcement from excavating the victim and if so, would a member of the MAFIA be brought to court with the murder weapon and the victim missing, based solely on eyewitness testimony of his relatives, even if that testimony contains inconsistencies and details, some people regard to be impossible by applying laws of nature? And if so, would you as a member of the jury convict the accused?

 

[Sebastianus]

Would you accept an explanation with so many assumptions? That is a question I would like you to answer.

If the argument were correct, of course. Take an example: consider this argument that a human cannot jump across the English channel.

1. The English channel is over a mile wide.
2. Humans are under ten feet tall.
3. No human can jump a distance of more than ten times his height.
4. Ten times ten feet is much less than a mile.
5. Therefore it is not possible for a human to jump over the English channel.

I think this argument is correct, even though it contains a lot of assumptions. If I wanted to contest this argument, then I would contest one of the assumptions. You should do the same.

You have missed my point about aerial photos not covering thw whole area where wood could have been taken from and my point about not totally stripping out all of the trees. Are there areas with fewer trees than otherwise expected?

Look at the aerial photos yourself, from the link I gave you. There may have been thinning, sure, but not on anything like the scale that would have been necessary to fuel the alleged cremations.

 

[Sebastianus]

It's also both a cherrypicked quote commonly cited in works about mummification, and hardly definitive considering that works discussing forensic decomposition (which is Rodriguez' area of expertise) explicitly warn that no single factor affects decomposition rates.

It's not clear what it means that this is "cherrypicked". Perhaps ANTPogo is insinuating that I have not seen the relevant passage in the actual book. If this is what he is claiming, he is wrong. Or perhaps he is suggesting that this statement is not representative of the literature in general. This is also false. Here are some more relevant quotations on decomposition supporting it, and refuting Muehlenkamp's understanding of decomposition (none of this, of course, should be taken as attacking the statement that carcasses lose fluid through leachate as they decompose. Of course they do. But this fact alone does not suffice to support the position of Muehlenkamp and ANTPogo):

Forensic anthropology by Peggy Thomas states that

Bodies buried one to two feet underground may become skeletonized in a few months to a year, but the same process may take years for bodies buried deeper (three to four feet).

The Wiley encyclopedia of forensic science states that

The interval between the time of death and final skeletonization is governed by the environment in which these processes occur, while the processes of degradation on the soil surface, which is biologically highly active, usually reach completion within several weeks, the time required for the decomposition of interred bodies takes between 3 and 12 years under favorable conditions. Under unfavorable conditions, the processes might require up to a hundred or even thousands of years before completion.

Carcass Disposal: a comprehensive review states that

The amount of time required for buried animal carcasses (or human corpses) to decompose depends most importantly on temperature, moisture, and burial depth, but also on soil type and drainability, species and size of carcass, humidity/aridity, rainfall, and other factors (McDaniel, 1991; Pounder, 1995; Mann, Bass, & Meadows, 1990). A human corpse left exposed to the elements can become skeletonized in a matter of two to four weeks (Mann, Bass, & Meadows, 1990; Iserson, 2001, p. 384); however, an unembalmed adult human corpse buried six feet deep in ordinary soil without a coffin requires approximately ten to twelve years or more to skeletonize (UK Environment Agency, 2002a; Pounder, 1995; Munro, 2001; Iserson, 2001). In addition to actual carcass material in a burial site, leachates or other pollutants may also persist for an extended period. Although much of the pollutant load would likely be released during the earlier stages of decomposition (i.e., during the first 1-5 years) (UK Environment Agency, 2001b; McDaniel, 1991; UK Environment Agency, 2002a; Munro, 2001), several reports suggest that mass burial sites could continue to produce both leachate and gas for as long as 20 years (UK Environment Agency, 2001b; Det Norske Veritas, 2003).

and that

The amount of time required for buried animal carcasses (or human corpses) to decompose depends on many factors including temperature, moisture, burial depth, soil type and drainability, species and size of carcass, humidity/aridity, rainfall, and possibly other factors (McDaniel, 1991). The factors of most significance will likely be temperature, moisture level, and burial depth. Warm temperatures hasten decomposition by the body’s natural enzymes found in many of the body’s cells and in the digestive juices (Iserson, 2001, p. 384). A carcass left on the surface of the ground generally decays much more quickly than a buried carcass due in large part to destruction of much of the soft tissue by insects, carnivores, and rodents (Micozzi, 1991; Mann, Bass, & Meadows, 1990; Iserson, 2001; Rodriguez & Bass, 1985). In ideal conditions (warm to hot weather), a human corpse left exposed to the elements can become skeletonized in a matter of two to four weeks (Mann, Bass, & Meadows, 1990; Iserson, 2001, p. 384). However, an unembalmed adult human corpse buried six feet deep in ordinary soil without a coffin requires approximately 10 to 12 years to skeletonize (UK Environment Agency, 2002a; Pounder, 1995; Munro, 2001; Iserson, 2001). Other sources indicate that even longer may be required: Scottish lore held that a grave was ‘ripe’ for twenty years after burial, meaning that it was likely more than bones would turn up if the grave was reopened before twenty years had passed. Since the Scots frequently reused gravesites, this maxim was well founded. (Iserson, 2001, p. 391) Given relatively equal factors (temperature, body size, etc.), a corpse placed in water (with no fish or reptiles present) will generally decompose about four times faster than a corpse that is buried (Iserson, 2001, p. 390). One source indicates that a buried whale carcass remained largely intact and putrid after 10-20 years (Gaudet, 1998). In addition to the lengthy persistence of actual carcass material in a burial site, leachates or other pollutants may also be long-lived. Although much of the pollutant load would likely be released during the earlier stages of decomposition (i.e., during the first 1-5 years) (UK Environment Agency, 2001b; McDaniel, 1991; UK Environment Agency, 2002a; Munro, 2001), several reports suggest that mass burial sites could continue to produce both leachate and gas for as long as 20 years (UK Environment Agency, 2001b; Det Norske Veritas, 2003).

Next, ANTPogo turns to the question of decomposition byproducts, but as he nowhere addresses what I have actually argued, there's no point in my replying. I am still waiting for ANTPogo to explain in detail what evidence he has that the bodies at Treblinka and Belzec would have been rendered much more flammable by decomposition. The closest he comes to offering an argument is this:

Neither I nor Muhlenkamp have asserted that any decomposition in all circumstances makes decomposed bodies burn more easily, but that bodies exhumed at Treblinka would have suffered enough water loss during decomposition while retaining enough flammable decomposition products to reduce Mattogno's purported fuel requirements for the mass cremations the Nazis carried out using those corpses.

Carcass Disposal: a comprehensive review writes:

Some of the best information available on the decomposition of animal carcasses in burial sites stems from the 2001 outbreak of FMD in the UK. Although a devastating event, this incident provides unique and valuable information relative to decomposition of mass quantities of animal carcasses. A report commissioned at the very early stages of the outbreak as a result of problems related to the use of mass burial sites attempted to estimate the volume of fluid leachate which could be expected to originate from cattle, sheep, and pig carcasses. It was estimated that about 50% of the total available fluid volume would “leak out” in the first week following death, and that nearly all of the immediately available fluid would have drained from the carcass within the first 2 months

This data is of course imperfect, but it does suffice to highlight the fact that most of the available leachate is lost early in the process of decomposition. ANTPogo claims that the loss of fluid from leachate dramatically increased the combustibility of the carcasses at Treblinka or Belzec, but that this did not happen at Epynt or in the aftermath of hurricane Floyd because they did not proceed to the same stage of decomposition. Since the loss of fluid in leachate occurs predominantly early in the process of decomposition, his position is unsustainable. The carcasses at Epynt and in North Carolina did experience the better part of all potential loss of fluid in leachate, but they were still harder to burn than fresh corpses.

archaeological work at Treblinka is only in its beginning stages, making the deniers' definitive statements about what was impossible to have happened there a teensy bit premature.

This is why I formulated my arguments as I did: if Sturdy Colls does not find more pits, with a much greater volume, then the Treblinka burial story has been conclusively refuted by the archaeological evidence.

Note also that at Belzec, where the archaeological work is complete, the same considerations of burial space also serve to refute the orthodox account of the camp's history. See chapter 11 of the recent MGK publication, as well at Mattogno's book on Belzec.

Concerning the discussion of the UK FMD mass burial sites, I will simply observe that ANTPogo's arguments do nothing to refute the actual thrust of the argument in that series of blog posts. There's little point in responding to ANTPogo's long string of one-liners that never fit together into an argument addressing the central issues at hand. Those who were intrigued by his remarks should simply read the actual posts

https://holocausthistorychannel.wor...l-space-part-2-foot-and-mouth-burial-sites-2/
https://holocausthistorychannel.wordpress.com/2013/07/10/burial-space-part-3-great-orton/
https://holocausthistorychannel.wordpress.com/2013/07/26/burial-space-part-5-throckmorton/
https://holocausthistorychannel.wor.../burial-space-part-5-1-throckmorton-reprised/
https://holocausthistorychannel.wordpress.com/2013/08/15/burial-space-part-6-birkshaw-forest/

and see for themselves. As an example of the inanity of ANTPogo's arguments, consider the following:

And even their smaller numbers aren't exactly the definitive upper bound - there's a whole lot of assumptions that go into their calculations, and even they admit that they may have overstated the burial volume by a factor of three (which means that their calculation for burial area at Treblinka could, by their own margin of error, be as small as .65 hectares!)

But the source in question did not "admit that they may have overstated the burial volume by a factor of three" but merely suggested that the data from a certain source was rather uncertain, and stated that even if it overstated the burial volume by a factor of three, it would still be consistent with revisionist assertions about mass burial. Moreover, the figure of 0.65 which ANTPogo obtains by dividing a certain area by 3 is concerned with measurements derived from an entirely different source - in fact, from official maps of the site.

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP> for Rule 12

As I stated above, let those who are interested read the articles in question and judge for themselves.

I will respond to ANTPogo's list of cremation sources separately.