This ground penetrating radar equipment is routinely used by geo-physicists.
Yes, and I know how to work one.
You can discern a rat buried in 2 meters depth with it. You cannot miss ground disturbances from a mass grave that allegedly harbored 870,000 people.
Debunked.
Well on these specific details concerning other people's incorrect interpretations of Krege's work I have this to say. First of all, no you can't discern a rat that has been buried for decades in the soil.
Also, concerning undisturbed soil. What parameters and extents are given for the tool? Let's start with the fact that no soil at Treblinka is "undisturbed" (periglacial area, plus some 15 centuries of farming). You can only use that term very loosely, colloquially in comparison to more obvious forms of recent excavated soil.
Here's a scan caught by a GPR:
Please notice that the top soil above the trenches are quickly evened and smoothened, since the upper portions of soil structuralize and evens up a lot faster than deeper sections of soil disturbence,
especially if the top soil has been farmed after the trenches were made.
In the scan that Nafcash showed (forget the link), the scan had similar banding in the upper part and wavey white and polychrome areas here and there in lower sections. Now, if the former scan (the one linked to above) is a not too unreasonable guide it would obviously appear that the uppermost couple of meters in the nafcash scan might actually represent backfilled, compacted fill.
And, as a curiosa, a standard technique with the GPR would be to first excavate a couple of trenches, to maybe 1,5 metres in depth. That's what they oft do in the normal archeological fields actually. Besides, we know they had
excavators at Treblinka during the early -40's.
Of course, this doesn't mean that bodies were buried there. It does however imply that portions of the ground were excavated for whatever reason, which is enough to put down your claims for now pertaining to Krege's report.
And, on the matter of Nafcash's odd challenges, finding the collective ashes (if it's correct that in -43 the corpses were dug up, burned and then had the ashes mixed with the soil) of 8,700 people (let alone 870 000) after some 65 years in the soil is always impossible.
So, with the combination of the depths of polychrome-areas aligned with very little soil/untouched/long since disturbed white-waves together with the above thick layers of classical 101 landscaped/excavated areals, it's safer to say that it is in fact disturbed soil.
Now for there to be a more clear take on possible trenches, there would need to be a patch-work done you see? Because the soil was landscaped, farmed, excavated and chewed six ways from sunday, most areas would look very much alike. Hence the need for the common patch-work is even greater. Naturally, the pits would have been several metres deeper than the average plowing done there, however there were such possible disturbances in the scan as which hinted on slightly narrow but v-shaped past excavations. If the scan was done on a pit's narrow side (for argument's sake) then it would hypothetically show this, or if it (the scan) had just grazed on the end of one of the pits, it would have shown this albeit less notably.
You do several series of ground probing scans and the align them next to each other for a better and enormously more exact overall-look on the qualities and quantities of the disturbances.
However a single scan, obviously showing soil disturbance, isn't enough out of a much larger landscaped, excavated area, which this soil in the scan is only a small patch of. Ergo the obvious necessity of a patch-work to see if there are anomolies, trench-forms appearing from a patched perspective to even get that basic affirmation down to the T, which still would not amount to direct proof of or against the burial of bodies there. Wise up "Investigator", you can't argue your way out of this hole, so stop digging.
