Archaeological Evidence of Mass Graves at Treblinka II

[Nessie]

Well not really since he believes everything he is told

That's demonstrably false, it doesn't matter how many time or ways I tell him...

You will need 'eyewitnesses'. Trustworthiness and consistancy of them is unimportant, and they can all describe completely different bridges.

The most accurate and reliable method for determining witness truthfulness, is corroboration. Truthfulness is more important than credibility, because a witness can be credible and lying through their teeth. If you only assess how credible the witness is, you may fall for the lies of a credible one.

To stay on topic, the corroborative evidence for mass graves at TII comes from;

- every single Jewish Sonderkommando and SS camp staff, who worked there.
- the 1944 aerial photo showing disturbed ground and rectangular outlines
- the 1945 Polish site survey that found large areas of disturbed ground containing cremated remains.
- the digging by grave robbers from 1945 onwards, that unearthed cremated remains.
- the 1966 site memorialisation work, that identified areas of human remains, to then cover them with concrete to prevent grave robbing.
- the 2011 geophysical survey, that identified specific areas of disturbed ground and found cremated remains on the surface.
- the circumstantial evidence of mass transports of people arriving at the camp, and very few leaving.

[joshk246]

Which is all the more reason why it would be unreasonable to expect witnesses to recollect the correct dimensions. The passage of time helps to explain why witnesses described grave sizes, that were too big to fit inside the camp.

Oh dear Nessie… those statements of a 200m long incineration trench were not decades after the war, unlike the 2 statements you provided.

I never said that the descriptions of a 200m long trench were made decades after the war. They were made around 2 years after the event, which is easily enough time for memory to fade and make it even more unlikely a witness would estimate a dimension correctly.

No you did not outright say that, but that certainly seemed to be the insinuation. Why else would you lump the 200m long trench statement in with the statements made by a man who died right before said statements of him were published in 1970.
Those two statements are not comparable when talking about confessions made after years have elapsed from WW2.

(The mushroom cloud one is funny, why would you include that?)

It is because that is what he is quoted as saying. What is funny about a mushroom cloud? I have seen fires that caused a mushroom cloud.

Do you have any other statements of this mushroom cloud, preferably not decades post war.

I do not remember, from the statements that I have read, any other description of a mushroom cloud. There are a lot of statements, I have not fully read, due to lack of availability of online translations.

Post them in here and quote me if you do find some.

How is one supposed to ascertain that Suchomel hadn't read Gitta's book about Stangl's 'confessions', also 'confessions' which are conducted decades after the 'holocaust narrative" has been engrained in society, are not serious evidence.

That is just speculation. So-called revisionists like to speculate and it is far easier than it is to evidence Suchomel had read and been influenced by Gitts's book, or that she made up what Stangl said. Most of so-called revisionism is just speculation.

So called ‘witnesses’ speculate much worse and cry out about ridiculous impossibilities, yet affirmers take that as gospel…

Historians and others, with experience and training in witness evidence, know not to take witness descriptions literally and to look for corroboration, to determine truthfulness. So-called revisionists, with no relevant training, make constant mistakes when assessing witness evidence.

And holocaustarians never make mistakes when they are the ones who take witness descriptions literally?...
I mean c'mon now, this is just pure projection on your end.

[Nessie]

I never said that the descriptions of a 200m long trench were made decades after the war. They were made around 2 years after the event, which is easily enough time for memory to fade and make it even more unlikely a witness would estimate a dimension correctly.

No you did not outright say that, but that certainly seemed to be the insinuation. Why else would you lump the 200m long trench statement in with the statements made by a man who died right before said statements of him were published in 1970.
Those two statements are not comparable when talking about confessions made after years have elapsed from WW2.

All statements by those who worked inside TII, are relevant. When Stangl states there were mass graves, and so do Jewish Sonderkommandos, that is corroboration. It is also strong corroboration, because it is accuser and accused agreeing, with no evidence of collusion. That every camp workers states there were mass graves, along with local Poles who saw excavators inside the camp and the archaeological evidence of mass graves, then that all corroborates and proves mass graves.

It is because that is what he is quoted as saying. What is funny about a mushroom cloud? I have seen fires that caused a mushroom cloud.

Do you have any other statements of this mushroom cloud, preferably not decades post war.

I do not remember, from the statements that I have read, any other description of a mushroom cloud. There are a lot of statements, I have not fully read, due to lack of availability of online translations.

Post them in here and quote me if you do find some.

That is just speculation. So-called revisionists like to speculate and it is far easier than it is to evidence Suchomel had read and been influenced by Gitts's book, or that she made up what Stangl said. Most of so-called revisionism is just speculation.

So called ‘witnesses’ speculate much worse and cry out about ridiculous impossibilities, yet affirmers take that as gospel…

Historians and others, with experience and training in witness evidence, know not to take witness descriptions literally and to look for corroboration, to determine truthfulness. So-called revisionists, with no relevant training, make constant mistakes when assessing witness evidence.

And holocaustarians never make mistakes when they are the ones who take witness descriptions literally?...
I mean c'mon now, this is just pure projection on your end.

Historians and other investigators, have not taken the witnesses literally. They know not to. They know what to expect from witnesses, their descriptions, fading memory and poor estimations.

[joshk246]

I never said that the descriptions of a 200m long trench were made decades after the war. They were made around 2 years after the event, which is easily enough time for memory to fade and make it even more unlikely a witness would estimate a dimension correctly.

No you did not outright say that, but that certainly seemed to be the insinuation. Why else would you lump the 200m long trench statement in with the statements made by a man who died right before said statements of him were published in 1970.
Those two statements are not comparable when talking about confessions made after years have elapsed from WW2.

All statements by those who worked inside TII, are relevant. When Stangl states there were mass graves, and so do Jewish Sonderkommandos, that is corroboration. It is also strong corroboration, because it is accuser and accused agreeing, with no evidence of collusion. That every camp workers states there were mass graves, along with local Poles who saw excavators inside the camp and the archaeological evidence of mass graves, then that all corroborates and proves mass graves.

It is because that is what he is quoted as saying. What is funny about a mushroom cloud? I have seen fires that caused a mushroom cloud.

Do you have any other statements of this mushroom cloud, preferably not decades post war.

I do not remember, from the statements that I have read, any other description of a mushroom cloud. There are a lot of statements, I have not fully read, due to lack of availability of online translations.

Post them in here and quote me if you do find some.

That is just speculation. So-called revisionists like to speculate and it is far easier than it is to evidence Suchomel had read and been influenced by Gitts's book, or that she made up what Stangl said. Most of so-called revisionism is just speculation.

So called ‘witnesses’ speculate much worse and cry out about ridiculous impossibilities, yet affirmers take that as gospel…

Historians and others, with experience and training in witness evidence, know not to take witness descriptions literally and to look for corroboration, to determine truthfulness. So-called revisionists, with no relevant training, make constant mistakes when assessing witness evidence.

And holocaustarians never make mistakes when they are the ones who take witness descriptions literally?...
I mean c'mon now, this is just pure projection on your end.

Historians and other investigators, have not taken the witnesses literally. They know not to. They know what to expect from witnesses, their descriptions, fading memory and poor estimations.

There are no mass graves + I do not care for liewitness statements, especially when said liewitnesses changed their story numerously and talk of impossible outside cremation pyres and wooden trunks used to smash bones.

[Nessie]

....
There are no mass graves + I do not care for liewitness statements, especially when said liewitnesses changed their story numerously and talk of impossible outside cremation pyres and wooden trunks used to smash bones.

That you do not believe the witnesses, does not therefore mean you have proved there were no mass graves. To do that, you need evidence there were no mass graves, such as a witness who speaks to no mass graves being dug, or a GPR survey showing undisturbed ground.

[joshk246]

....
There are no mass graves + I do not care for liewitness statements, especially when said liewitnesses changed their story numerously and talk of impossible outside cremation pyres and wooden trunks used to smash bones.

That you do not believe the witnesses, does not therefore mean you have proved there were no mass graves. To do that, you need evidence there were no mass graves, such as a witness who speaks to no mass graves being dug, or a GPR survey showing undisturbed ground.

That you do believe the witnesses, does not mean you have proved there were mass graves.
Just one photo of a mass grave inside TII with more than 10 bodies exhumed from it.

[Nessie]

....
There are no mass graves + I do not care for liewitness statements, especially when said liewitnesses changed their story numerously and talk of impossible outside cremation pyres and wooden trunks used to smash bones.

That you do not believe the witnesses, does not therefore mean you have proved there were no mass graves. To do that, you need evidence there were no mass graves, such as a witness who speaks to no mass graves being dug, or a GPR survey showing undisturbed ground.

That you do believe the witnesses, does not mean you have proved there we're mass graves.
Just one photo of a mass grave inside TII with more than 10 bodies exhumed from it.

My opinion and beliefs do not come into this. I follow corroborated evidence and it proves there were mass graves. Multiple eyewitnesses, archaeological surveys and circumstantial evidence corroborates. As for photos, there are the Kurt Franz photos of excavators at the camp, the 1944 aerial photo showing disturbed ground and rectangular outlines and post war photos that show disturbed ground and bones, including skulls, that were dug up by grave robbers, or from when the memorial was built.

You have zero evidence from any witness, archaeological survey or any other source. You base your beliefs on zero evidence.

[Nazgul]

My opinion and beliefs do not come into this. I follow corroborated evidence and it proves there were mass graves. Multiple eyewitnesses, archaeological surveys and circumstantial evidence corroborates. As for photos, there are the Kurt Franz photos of excavators at the camp, the 1944 aerial photo showing disturbed ground and rectangular outlines and post war photos that show disturbed ground and bones, including skulls, that were dug up by grave robbers, or from when the memorial was built.

You are the most closed minded person in the history of humanity. You are just repeating your beliefs without adding anything, so the arguments are on some sort of a circular track. Despite all this Marian Olszuk saw nothing of note and there is only one pic of smoke from the camp after it was torched. No smoke, the story is cattle excrement. The elders of Wolka Orgraglik, a few km away never mentioned it either.

[joshk246]

That you do not believe the witnesses, does not therefore mean you have proved there were no mass graves. To do that, you need evidence there were no mass graves, such as a witness who speaks to no mass graves being dug, or a GPR survey showing undisturbed ground.

That you do believe the witnesses, does not mean you have proved there we're mass graves.
Just one photo of a mass grave inside TII with more than 10 bodies exhumed from it.

My opinion and beliefs do not come into this. I follow corroborated evidence and it proves there were mass graves. Multiple eyewitnesses, archaeological surveys and circumstantial evidence corroborates. As for photos, there are the Kurt Franz photos of excavators at the camp, the 1944 aerial photo showing disturbed ground and rectangular outlines and post war photos that show disturbed ground and bones, including skulls, that were dug up by grave robbers, or from when the memorial was built.

You have zero evidence from any witness, archaeological survey or any other source. You base your beliefs on zero evidence.

There is literally nothing to show that those skulls were in fact exhumed from Treblinka II, because it wasn't a proper study, we already went over this. If you mean the pits identified by Caroline Coll's then we can go over that.
Excavators were at Treblinka I to be used in gravel mines, not at TII.
As for aerial photographs...

[Nessie]

My opinion and beliefs do not come into this. I follow corroborated evidence and it proves there were mass graves. Multiple eyewitnesses, archaeological surveys and circumstantial evidence corroborates. As for photos, there are the Kurt Franz photos of excavators at the camp, the 1944 aerial photo showing disturbed ground and rectangular outlines and post war photos that show disturbed ground and bones, including skulls, that were dug up by grave robbers, or from when the memorial was built.

You are the most closed minded person in the history of humanity. You are just repeating your beliefs without adding anything, so the arguments are on some sort of a circular track. Despite all this Marian Olszuk saw nothing of note and there is only one pic of smoke from the camp after it was torched. No smoke, the story is cattle excrement. The elders of Wolka Orgraglik, a few km away never mentioned it either.

Unless you have evidence pertaining to mass graves, such as GPR, to discuss, stop making threads repetitive, by discussing Olszuk, yet again.

[Nazgul]

Unless you have evidence pertaining to mass graves, such as GPR, to discuss, stop making threads repetitive, by discussing Olszuk, yet again.

Olszuk is a very credible witness to a non event. As there is evidence of aerial bombing the mass grave hypothesis has little validity.

[Nessie]

That you do believe the witnesses, does not mean you have proved there we're mass graves.
Just one photo of a mass grave inside TII with more than 10 bodies exhumed from it.

My opinion and beliefs do not come into this. I follow corroborated evidence and it proves there were mass graves. Multiple eyewitnesses, archaeological surveys and circumstantial evidence corroborates. As for photos, there are the Kurt Franz photos of excavators at the camp, the 1944 aerial photo showing disturbed ground and rectangular outlines and post war photos that show disturbed ground and bones, including skulls, that were dug up by grave robbers, or from when the memorial was built.

You have zero evidence from any witness, archaeological survey or any other source. You base your beliefs on zero evidence.

There is literally nothing to show that those skulls were in fact exhumed from Treblinka II, because it wasn't a proper study, we already went over this.

There are photos from the site, showing grave robbers with skulls and then skulls found when the memorial was built.

If you mean the pits identified by Caroline Coll's then we can go over that.

Six pits, found round the edge of the main memorial, in the area of the camp where witnesses stated the main mass graves were located. Only someone who does not want to believe, ignores that corroborating evidence.

Excavators were at Treblinka I to be used in gravel mines, not at TII.

Kurt Franze worked at TII, not TI and the photos he took of excavators, were not in a quarry, they were at TII. Local Polish railworkers speak to seeing excavators working inside the camp, when it was initially constructed.

As for aerial photographs...

You show a low resolution image. Why did the Nazis leave the camp like this, with a guard?

[Nazgul]

Kurt Franze worked at TII, not TI and the photos he took of excavators, were not in a quarry, they were at TII. Local Polish railworkers speak to seeing excavators working inside the camp, when it was initially constructed.

The place you call TII was two Judenlagers attached to TI, but isolated because of the alleged Jewish contamination, hence a commander.

[joshk246]

My opinion and beliefs do not come into this. I follow corroborated evidence and it proves there were mass graves. Multiple eyewitnesses, archaeological surveys and circumstantial evidence corroborates. As for photos, there are the Kurt Franz photos of excavators at the camp, the 1944 aerial photo showing disturbed ground and rectangular outlines and post war photos that show disturbed ground and bones, including skulls, that were dug up by grave robbers, or from when the memorial was built.

You have zero evidence from any witness, archaeological survey or any other source. You base your beliefs on zero evidence.

There is literally nothing to show that those skulls were in fact exhumed from Treblinka II, because it wasn't a proper study, we already went over this.

There are photos from the site, showing grave robbers with skulls and then skulls found when the memorial was built.

If you mean the pits identified by Caroline Coll's then we can go over that.

Six pits, found round the edge of the main memorial, in the area of the camp where witnesses stated the main mass graves were located. Only someone who does not want to believe, ignores that corroborating evidence.

Excavators were at Treblinka I to be used in gravel mines, not at TII.

Kurt Franze worked at TII, not TI and the photos he took of excavators, were not in a quarry, they were at TII. Local Polish railworkers speak to seeing excavators working inside the camp, when it was initially constructed.

As for aerial photographs...

You show a low resolution image. Why did the Nazis leave the camp like this, with a guard?

Six pits, found round the edge of the main memorial, in the area of the camp where witnesses stated the main mass graves were located. Only someone who does not want to believe, ignores that corroborating evidence.

The largest pit found by Colls wouldn't accommodate even 50,000 corpses, this is even if we generously assume Rajchman's estimate of them being 6m deep is correct.

There are photos from the site, showing grave robbers with skulls and then skulls found when the memorial was built.

They found them in a forest near TI, even Łukaszkiewicz omits about TII:

“During the work on the terrain, I found no mass graves, which, in connection with the statements by the witnesses Romanowski and Wiernik, leads to the conclusion that nearly all of the bodies of the victims were burned, all the more so since the camp was liquidated early and the murderers had much time. The ground of the camp was ploughed and sown. Ukrainians were settled there; they fled before the arrival of the Red Army (witnesses Kucharek and Lopuszyński).”

[Nessie]

...

Six pits, found round the edge of the main memorial, in the area of the camp where witnesses stated the main mass graves were located. Only someone who does not want to believe, ignores that corroborating evidence.

The largest pit found by Colls wouldn't accommodate even 50,000 corpses, this is even if we generously assume Rajchman's estimate of them being 6m deep is correct.

Why were excavators digging at TII and what did the Nazis bury there? Please answer with evidence.

There are photos from the site, showing grave robbers with skulls and then skulls found when the memorial was built.

They found them in a forest near TI,

No the grave robber and memorial photos are at TII.

even Łukaszkiewicz omits about TII:

“During the work on the terrain, I found no mass graves, which, in connection with the statements by the witnesses Romanowski and Wiernik, leads to the conclusion that nearly all of the bodies of the victims were burned, all the more so since the camp was liquidated early and the murderers had much time. The ground of the camp was ploughed and sown. Ukrainians were settled there; they fled before the arrival of the Red Army (witnesses Kucharek and Lopuszyński).”

He found no mass graves full of corpses, which corroborated witness claims that the corpses had been cremated.