Sobibór: Kola-Mazurek Discrepancies and Implications

[Callafangers]

I realize the above can raise a lot of confusion. But to be clear: the vast majority of all "graves" have hardly any corpse remains. Mazurek acknowledges these areas as almost entirely barren (nothing but sand), over and over again, with sparse/patchy regions of non-dense corpse materials, in almost all of his descriptions. This is why you see so much unshaded area (representing corpse densities of less than 0.5% throughout, likely closer to 0.05% if we were to average out the entire "fill" regions). And even graves where there is some concentration of corpse material noted, it is almost always far from anything "dense"; hence the many patchy blue regions and only a handful of medium or higher density areas, often unburnt.

[Nessie]

Graves1-8.jpg

How do you know that the unshaded grave/fill areas are barren?

[Callafangers]

Graves1-8.jpg

How do you know that the unshaded grave/fill areas are barren?

It doesn't work that way (although Mazurek does explicitly describe many areas as barren). Here's what we know:

• Kola's own reports said almost nothing about proportions, leaving his readers to assume he's describing the overall character of his samples in his list of contents (e.g. "crematory grave with lime").
• Mazurek conclusively exposed that Kola's descriptions are in no way representative of the graves as Kola defined them -- for example, in Grave 1 (a massive volume of some 1,720m3), Kola simply calls it a "cremation grave". But Mazurek excavated this entire area and found it to be almost entirely barren. That's at least ~12,000 Jews' worth of 'findings' gone immediately, or far higher if we use more 'generous' math such as by excluding sand or wood ash completely.
• Similar misrepresentations are found in other graves (e.g. Grave 2, where Kola here also provides a phrasing/size illusion of it being a "cremation grave" yet Mazurek finds only scattered remnants).

The problem in the bullets above is that Kola is misrepresenting the contents of his "graves" and their depth. But on closer review, he does the same with regard to length+width!:

• His report explicitly states that within the graves, he had 128 corpse-positive drills
• Calculating the total drills conducted at all of these graves, however (185 total), means he had only a [128 / 185 =] 69.2% success (positive) rate even within the 'graves' he drew

This means he had negative drills scattered within and throughout his drawing of each 'grave', in addition to radically exaggerating the contents of each. Length x width x height; i.e. three-dimensions of exaggeration/fabrication.

But there are additional problems when we look at Kola's methodology and its application to begin with:

• Kola drilled in a grid with 5-meter spacing with 60cm boreholes
• With the omission of negatives, I have calculated that for his graves 1-6, this comes out to an average of [29.83 x 1.43% =] 42.7m2 being represented per drill.
• In other words, each 'positive' drill is representing a surface area about the size of a one-bedroom apartment.
• Accounting for depth as well, each drill is accounting for 108.3m3 (about the volume of a typical classroom).

It is safe to say, Kola has extrapolated his drills to an obscene and ridiculous extent, which would be bad enough. Add to it the fact that he as also grossly misrepresented them along all three dimensions.

While Mazurek did come aboard and "clean up" some of what Kola got egregiously wrong, he really didn't considerably redraw Kola's grave boundaries, just 'trimmed' them somewhat, while still noting the profound barrenness (or at least sparsity) of almost every grave examined.

To come up with the admittedly-speculative approximations used in the illustration (heat map) provided, I sought a balance between what is actually evidenced thus far and what could reasonably be extrapolated, accounting for all descriptions thus far provided between Kola and Mazurek (and obviously weighting Mazurek's descriptions far and above anything claimed by Kola, given his now-proven incompetence or deceit).

My overall methodology for placing colored shading on the map has basically been as simple as that. I have leaned heavily into AI in reviewing/assisting the placement, mainly to save myself time, but I have reviewed everything myself and can say I would more or less stand behind it.

Recap of key factors:

• Kola had only a 5-6% hit rate per hectare and even within his arbitrarily drawn "graves", more than 30% of his drills within each grave, on average, were apparently negative
• Kola gave only extremely broad-reaching 'incriminating' characterizations of these "graves" in his published report, repeatedly portraying vast areas of thousands of cubic meters as being of corpse material when, in fact, they were barren or patchy at most
• Mazurek gives more precise descriptions, highlighting a pattern such that barrenness is common throughout almost all grave areas, with sand as a vast majority of the contents even in obvious "grave" areas (though with some notably smaller/patchy segments having somewhat higher concentrations at times).
• Mazurek is limited by his inability to dig deeper into corpse remains when found in heavy concentrations, but general patterns between Mazurek's and Kola's [more invasive] findings allow for some informed speculation
• The combination of vast barrenness, sparse/patchy "graves", Kola's fragmented original grave layout, and the overall pattern of Mazurek "fact-checking" Kola and proving his extraordinary inflation altogether leads to the minimization of any potential maximum-per-grave overall (in terms of volume, density, etc.).
• The specific language used for each grave is considered in accordance with all of these factors, in an attempt to map out a plausible layout of corpse density, while still respecting the framework of these factors just listed (and any directional indicators, e.g. "along the southeast side...")

The heat map provided is definitely an attempt to illustrate informed speculation rather than any sort of hard science, but given that Kola's suggested quantities were outright false and Mazurek's excavations were less invasive, informed speculation is the only tool we have available, for the time being.

All of this said, as I was revisiting each of the graves, I realized that some of the statements from the final report had been left out. I revised some of the density mapping accordingly. Main changes include increasing the density in graves 3/4, slight reductions to graves 5 and 6, and total elimination of corpse density in grave 7, which was confirmed to have only been a pyre location (no corpses there). I made the corrections in my post on the previous page but here it is as well:

Graves1-8d.jpg (349.15 KiB) Viewed 552 times

Just so everyone is clear on what the above map shows, let's consider for a moment if ALL of the grave areas were actually red in color. Even if this were the case, we'd have ~13,000m3 of volume there. Since red shading refers to at least 60% density, that leaves us:

13,000 x 0.6 = 7,800m3

In an earlier post on this thread (based on Mattogno's work in outdoor pyres, fuel requirements, volume of wood ash vs. corpse ash, etc.), I estimated about seven corpses able to fit per cubic meter. This gives us:

7,800 x 7 = 54,600 corpses

In other words, if this ENTIRE map were red, we'd still only have room there for ~54,600 corpses.

That is how rough the situation is for exterminationists, currently.

Again, this map is speculative -- others are welcomed and encouraged to revise it. Consider it a first draft. Do your best to create a more accurate version. I do not believe someone can reasonably argue that most areas should be even yellow-green, let alone yellow, orange, or red. If you wish to attempt this, you need to explain it alongside the excerpts from Mazurek (and Kola) which I've provided.

[EDIT: I just realized Nessie may have been asking specifically about the comment in the map/image, regarding "93% barren among unshaded areas". This, like the rest of the map, uses a reasonable overall estimate of corpse remains density per grave and simply accounts for what the remainder (non-color-shaded) areas must be, given the higher percentages of the color-shaded areas. It also reflects the ~6-7% overall drill "hit rate" per hectare, from Kola. The key metric or question for each grave is, "what is the most reasonable estimation of corpse density % for this grave, overall?". Everything else stems from this and becomes more creative/speculative from that point (including the estimated contents of lower-density areas). But the general pattern of varying density and sand-dominant or barren regions aligns with the patchy-sparse layouts as described by Mazurek and Kola's inconsistent drills.]

[Nessie]

Graves1-8.jpg

How do you know that the unshaded grave/fill areas are barren?

It doesn't work that way (although Mazurek does explicitly describe many areas as barren).

It does. Unless those areas are excavated, you do not know what, if anything, is buried there.

Here's what we know:

• Kola's own reports said almost nothing about proportions, leaving his readers to assume he's describing the overall character of his samples in his list of contents (e.g. "crematory grave with lime").
• Mazurek conclusively exposed that Mazurek's descriptions are in no way representative of the graves as Kola defined them -- for example, in Grave 1 (a massive volume of some 1,720m3), Kola simply calls it a "cremation grave". But Mazurek excavated this entire area and found it to be almost entirely barren. That's at least ~12,000 Jews' worth of 'findings' gone immediately, or far higher if we use more 'generous' math such as by excluding sand or wood ash completely.

Mazurek gave various reasons, it was a grave used for cremations, it was emptied of corpses, or it was dug but never used.

[*] Similar misrepresentations are found in other graves (e.g. Grave 2, where Kola here also provides a phrasing/size illusion of it being a "cremation grave" yet Mazurek finds only scattered remnants). [/list]

The problem in the bullets above is that Kola is misrepresenting the contents of his "graves" and their depth.

I think that is just your way of interpreting Kola, as you finds ways to discret what he found.

But on closer review, he does the same with regard to length+width!:

• His report explicitly states that within the graves, he had 128 corpse-positive drills
• Calculating the total drills conducted at all of these graves, however (185 total), means he had only a [128 / 185 =] 69.2% success (positive) rate even within the 'graves' he drew

This means he had negative drills scattered within and throughout his drawing of each 'grave', in addition to radically exaggerating the contents of each. Length x width x height; i.e. three-dimensions of exaggeration/fabrication.

You would need to show which drills are which and that he has corpse negative drills in one section, which should not be counted as part of the grave, or the drill was corpse negative and it does not show disturbed ground. If it showed disturbed ground, with no corpses, that is still part of where the Nazis dug a grave, that no longer, or never had, corpses in it.

But there are additional problems when we look at Kola's methodology and its application to begin with:

• Kola drilled in a grid with 5-meter spacing with 60cm boreholes
• With the omission of negatives, I have calculated that for his graves 1-6, this comes out to an average of [29.83 x 1.43% =] 42.7m2 being represented per drill.
• In other words, each 'positive' drill is representing a surface area about the size of a one-bedroom apartment.
• Accounting for depth as well, each drill is accounting for 108.3m3 (about the volume of a typical classroom).

It is safe to say, Kola has extrapolated his drills to an obscene and ridiculous extent, which would be bad enough. Add to it the fact that he as also grossly misrepresented them along all three dimensions.

It is quite reasonable, if an area of 60cm boreholes, 5m apart are all found to contain remains, to extrapolate the ground in between also has remains. The consistency within the bore holes samples, is not the same, showing that the consistency between them, is also likely not be consistent. That shows the extent that the Nazis mixed the cremains into the ground, which is consistent with witness descriptions of the reburial of the cremains.

While Mazurek did come aboard and "clean up" some of what Kola got egregiously wrong, he really didn't considerably redraw Kola's grave boundaries, just 'trimmed' them somewhat, while still noting the profound barrenness (or at least sparsity) of almost every grave examined.

An excavation is going to reveal more detail than a bore hole survey.

To come up with the admittedly-speculative approximations used in the illustration (heat map) provided, I sought a balance between what is actually evidenced thus far and what could reasonably be extrapolated, accounting for all descriptions thus far provided between Kola and Mazurek (and obviously weighting Mazurek's descriptions far and above anything claimed by Kola, given his now-proven incompetence or deceit).

My overall methodology for placing colored shading on the map has basically been as simple as that. I have leaned heavily into AI in reviewing/assisting the placement, mainly to save myself time, but I have reviewed everything myself and can say I would more or less stand behind it.

Recap of key factors:

• Kola had only a 5-6% hit rate per hectare and even within his arbitrarily drawn "graves", more than 30% of his drills within each grave, on average, were apparently negative
• Kola gave only extremely broad-reaching 'incriminating' characterizations of these "graves" in his published report, repeatedly portraying vast areas of thousands of cubic meters as being of corpse material when, in fact, they were barren or patchy at most
• Mazurek gives more precise descriptions, highlighting a pattern such that barrenness is common throughout almost all grave areas, with sand as a vast majority of the contents even in obvious "grave" areas (though with some notably smaller/patchy segments having somewhat higher concentrations at times).
• Mazurek is limited by his inability to dig deeper into corpse remains when found in heavy concentrations, but general patterns between Mazurek's and Kola's [more invasive] findings allow for some informed speculation
• The combination of vast barrenness, sparse/patchy "graves", Kola's fragmented original grave layout, and the overall pattern of Mazurek "fact-checking" Kola and proving his extraordinary inflation altogether leads to the minimization of any potential maximum-per-grave overall (in terms of volume, density, etc.).
• The specific language used for each grave is considered in accordance with all of these factors, in an attempt to map out a plausible layout of corpse density, while still respecting the framework of these factors just listed (and any directional indicators, e.g. "along the southeast side...")

The heat map provided is definitely an attempt to illustrate informed speculation rather than any sort of hard science, but given that Kola's suggested quantities were outright false and Mazurek's excavations were less invasive, informed speculation is the only tool we have available, for the time being.

All of this said, as I was revisiting each of the graves, I realized that some of the statements from the final report had been left out. I revised some of the density mapping accordingly. Main changes include increasing the density in graves 3/4, slight reductions to graves 5 and 6, and total elimination of corpse density in grave 7, which was confirmed to have only been a pyre location (no corpses there). I made the corrections in my post on the previous page but here it is as well:


Graves1-8d.jpg


Just so everyone is clear on what the above map shows, let's consider for a moment if ALL of the grave areas were actually red in color. Even if this were the case, we'd have ~13,000m3 of volume there. Since red shading refers to at least 60% density, that leaves us:

13,000 x 0.6 = 7,800m3

In an earlier post on this thread (based on Mattogno's work in outdoor pyres, fuel requirements, volume of wood ash vs. corpse ash, etc.), I estimated about seven corpses able to fit per cubic meter. This gives us:

7,800 x 7 = 54,600 corpses

In other words, if this ENTIRE map were red, we'd still only have room there for ~54,600 corpses.

That is how rough the situation is for exterminationists, currently.

Again, this map is speculative -- others are welcomed and encouraged to revise it. Consider it a first draft. Do your best to create a more accurate version. I do not believe someone can reasonably argue that most areas should be even yellow-green, let alone yellow, orange, or red. If you wish to attempt this, you need to explain it alongside the excerpts from Mazurek (and Kola) which I've provided.

[EDIT: I just realized Nessie may have been asking specifically about the comment in the map/image, regarding "93% barren among unshaded areas". This, like the rest of the map, uses a reasonable overall estimate of corpse remains density per grave and simply accounts for what the remainder (non-color-shaded) areas must be, given the higher percentages of the color-shaded areas. The key metric or question for each grave is, "what is the most reasonable estimation of corpse density % for this grave, overall?". Everything else stems from this and becomes more creative/speculative from that point (including the estimated contents of lower-density areas). But the general pattern of varying density and sand-dominant or barren regions aligns with the patchy-sparse layouts as described by Mazurek and Kola's inconsistent drills.]

I just see your assessment as the biased work of someone desperately trying to diminish the amount of ground the Nazis excavated at Belzec and the quantity of cremated remains found. A large part of the camp has not been excavated, since Mazurek did not want to disturb remains, as much as possible, yet he kept on finding them, all over the place.

[Callafangers]

Unless those areas are excavated, you do not know what, if anything, is buried there.

You certainly do not. My interpretation is based upon documented patterns and findings of these excavations. Some areas were excavated fully, and those that weren't at least had drills conducted. There was only a 6% hit rate (positive drills) per hectare, and only a 69% hit rate even within the "graves" drawn. Mazurek consistently shows sparse remains where Kola had indicated dense saturation, explicitly documenting findings as 'patchy', 'barren', 'thin layers', etc., across all major graves. This means that all of the evidence we have reflects Sobibor as being of sparse remains -- no 'dense mass graves'. No large graves at all had anything clearly in the way of even 20-30% corpse material dominant, let alone 60%+ (we also haven't even accounted for an apparent lack of charcoal and wood ash, when this should outnumber all corpse remains by 10-to-1). But even such extreme densities cannot account for so much as one-quarter of alleged 'Holocaust' victims there. As it stands, the evidence accounts for far less; something like ~2% of what you insist on. Even if we assume 100% of the areas not fully excavated are chock-full of 60%+ crematory remains, this still wouldn't reach ~20% of your 250,000 figure, since Mazurek's study has already conclusively eliminated certain graves (e.g. Grave 1).

Mazurek gave various reasons, it was a grave used for cremations, it was emptied of corpses, or it was dug but never used.

Nessie, you know better than this: none of these claims from Mazurek are evidenced. The inferences he draws here are based on his assumptions of the orthodox history, having nothing to do with his findings.

[*] Similar misrepresentations are found in other graves (e.g. Grave 2, where Kola here also provides a phrasing/size illusion of it being a "cremation grave" yet Mazurek finds only scattered remnants). [/list]

The problem in the bullets above is that Kola is misrepresenting the contents of his "graves" and their depth.

I think that is just your way of interpreting Kola, as you finds ways to discret [discredit] what he found.

No -- it is a fact that Kola uses the blanket description of Grave 2 as a "crematory grave" (direct quote), only for Mazurek to audit this via excavation and determine only scattered remains. There is no ambiguity here.

You would need to show which drills are which and that he has corpse negative drills in one section, which should not be counted as part of the grave, or the drill was corpse negative and it does not show disturbed ground. If it showed disturbed ground, with no corpses, that is still part of where the Nazis dug a grave, that no longer, or never had, corpses in it.

Kola himself doesn't show this, which is the whole point. It's quite unusual that he would simply omit this data. 'Disturbed ground' is hardly accounted for by anyone, since it proves nothing. It only matters to you, for some strange reason (?).

It is quite reasonable, if an area of 60cm boreholes, 5m apart are all found to contain remains, to extrapolate the ground in between also has remains. The consistency within the bore holes samples, is not the same, showing that the consistency between them, is also likely not be consistent. That shows the extent that the Nazis mixed the cremains into the ground, which is consistent with witness descriptions of the reburial of the cremains.

All were NOT found to contain remains. Only about 69% were, even within drawn 'graves'. But this challenges the drawing of them in the first place, further invalidated by Mazurek's explicit confirmation that only sparse/patchy burials are identified.

If the Nazis 'mixed cremains' then you are extra-screwed, since now you are admitting that all corpse remains throughout the area will be a volume that is only partly crematory remains, always diluted by other materials. Is this your final answer?

An excavation is going to reveal more detail than a bore hole survey.

Agreed, and it revealed that Kola misrepresented his findings via phrasing on size/density/volume.

I just see your assessment as the biased work of someone desperately trying to diminish the amount of ground the Nazis excavated at Belzec and the quantity of cremated remains found. A large part of the camp has not been excavated, since Mazurek did not want to disturb remains, as much as possible, yet he kept on finding them, all over the place.

How biased am I, Nessie? Care to quantify it? Actually, we can even visualize it: how many of the graves in the heat map should be red or orange instead of gray and blue/green? Please refer to the excavation reports and show how they support your assessment.

[Callafangers]

To anyone considering the findings and information shared thus far, ask yourself:

Does this look more like several thousand corpses (at most; diseased corpses from ghettos, isolated executions) having been cremated and buried over the course of perhaps a few dozen different cremation-burial instances, and then these cremation burials disturbed (dug up) by various grave robbers and ad hoc excavations in subsequent decades, further scattering the sparse/limited remains?

Or, does it look like three times the number of people in this stadium crowd below were cremated, crushed, and buried (each of them producing a basketball-sized amount of cremains; or more if unburnt) along with the wood charcoal/ash produced by their cremation (amounting to 10x the volume of their cremains)? In other words, do we see almost 3,000,000 basketballs' worth of crematory contents within the volume described by Mazurek (and to a lesser extent, Kola)?

There are ~85-90,000 people in this entire crowd, below; Sobibor alleges 250,000 corpses buried on-site (requiring some 100 million kilograms of wood to cremate, with massive corresponding grave volume needed for the insane amounts of charcoal/wood):



There is also the issue of displaced soil/sand -- where is it? If these disturbed areas with sparse corpse remains were ever chock-full of crematory contents (wood/corpses), then where was the soil/sand placed during that time, and why is it now instead back in the graves (instead of corpses/wood)? Anywhere it was piled would show as 'disturbed ground', flagging it for excavation but we don't find any mounds of moved/displaced soil piled anywhere. Instead, we find the soil (gray sand) still within the alleged 'graves', occupying the vast majority of "grave" volume.

So, where are the 250,000 Jews? They cannot be at Sobibor's Camp III -- the evidence strictly forbids it.

[Callafangers]

For further consideration of just how absurd these claims are, here is some ground level and overhead imagery of Sobibor. The first images are from Roberto Muehlenkamp's 2012 visit, the aerial image is a 2017 satellite view:

Graves3-6.jpg (90.02 KiB) Viewed 492 times

Grave1Left.jpg (88.65 KiB) Viewed 492 times

Aerial2017.jpg (43.7 KiB) Viewed 492 times

The sparse, barren, patchy "graves" are supposed to have been filled with three times the number of people in this entire crowd, each leaving a minimum of basketball-sized cremains (if burnt; more if not) requiring the charcoal/ashes of 400kg of wood (amounting to 8-10 basketballs' by volume, in ashes/charcoal):



That comes out to:

1 basketball per corpse
~9 basketballs per each corpse's wood charcoal
= ~10 basketballs for each of the 250,000 corpses
= 2,500,000 basketballs

Hmm that gives us:

2,500,000 / 85,000 (Wembley at near-capacity) = ~30

So, fill up thirty (30) Wembley stadiums (!!!) with the same number of people as in the video above. Each person in the crowd of 2.5 million people is carrying a basketball, and they each go drop their basketball into the same 5-6 pits.

How big do those pits need to be?

And then what happens when we discover that the pits are already >90% filled with soil/sand and other materials (no room for basketballs)?

And then what do we do with any displaced soil?

Would it look like this, and have excavations uniformly confirming only "patchy", discontiguous remains amid predominantly "barren" sand-regions, enabling at most a couple thousand m3 of available volume?:

Graves3-6.jpg (90.02 KiB) Viewed 492 times

[Stubble]

Why Callifangers, that's going to lead in to 'Where'd they go?'.

Pilgrimofdark pointed something out to me yesterday, on both sides of the Bug, around Treblinka, Sobibor and Belzec, on a classified contemporary German map, it shows work projects. I'm currently trying to cross reference those worksites with memoranda from 'T' series documents to see if we can parse out who was meeting the labor requirements.

Spoiler

I don't have much to add to this yet, but here are a couple of interesting maps that put the Sobibor area in context.

A nicely color-coded map of the Ostbahn jurisdictional limits is available from the Archiwum Narodowe w Krakowie. It can be zoomed in more by going to the website.


Archiwum Narodowe w Krakowie 29/663/0/7/1288

Sobibor is just slightly south of the railway that crosses the border of the Generalgouvernement just east of the town of Włodawa into RVD Kiew.

The next map adds more detail to this particular region.

This is a German secret military map of the Włodawa region. Sobibor is a little south. It indicates paved roads and labor sites in the area. It's dated from 1944.

The railroad north from Sobibor crosses into RVD Kiew, so outside of the jurisdictional limit of the Generaldirektion der Ostbahn (Gedob). It even bypasses Włodawa entirely, skirting along the east bank of the Bug River to the north.

Other maps tend not to indicate how close Sobibor and the other AR camps were to internal district or external jurisdictional limits of the Ostbahn or Generalgouvernement.

The Polish OBÓZ ZAGŁADY W SOBIBORZE investigatory report from 1947 is online if anyone wants to extract the text and translate it.

I wonder if much of the official chronology bounces back to the Ringelblum Archive in Warsaw.

I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to find that the jews deported east, were indeed deported east, and employed at these various labor sites, outside of the camp system.

[Callafangers]

Why Callifangers, that's going to lead in to 'Where'd they go?'.

That's very true, and I think Nessie and the rest of us would all have to agree that is a great question. The problem is, Nessie is the one who claims to have already answered it.

The graves are mapped and dug... but the evidence fits the revisionist view like a glove.

[Stubble]

Hold on a minute there, I'm sure Nessie isn't going to think about this. He's going to tell you the bodies are there, because he knows they are there, because the witnesses say they are there. It is evidenced. Just because you can't work out how they are buried, doesn't mean they aren't buried, after all...

I wouldn't be surprised if the other side of the coin starts leaning on 'the remains were sent to Germany to fertilize cabbage'...

[Nessie]

...There was only a 6% hit rate (positive drills) per hectare, and only a 69% hit rate even within the "graves" drawn. Mazurek consistently shows sparse remains where Kola had indicated dense saturation, explicitly documenting findings as 'patchy', 'barren', 'thin layers', etc., across all major graves....

Interesting use of the word "only". I get only 6%, but not only 69%. You then cherry-pick the descriptive that accept limited finds. It is clear your tactic is to minimise what was found.

Mazurek gave various reasons, it was a grave used for cremations, it was emptied of corpses, or it was dug but never used.

Nessie, you know better than this: none of these claims from Mazurek are evidenced. The inferences he draws here are based on his assumptions of the orthodox history, having nothing to do with his findings.

Wrong, his assumptions are based on what he found. The Nazis dug a huge pit and then left little to nothing in it. Of course, you are not interested in what that is, or at least trying to evidence a chronological narrative that explains it. You are only interested in reinforcing your desired belief, that far fewer people were buried at the camp, than the evidence from eyewitnesses, documents and circumstances proves.

...No -- it is a fact that Kola uses the blanket description of Grave 2 as a "crematory grave" (direct quote), only for Mazurek to audit this via excavation and determine only scattered remains. There is no ambiguity here.

Is a crematory grave, one that cremains were buried in, or one when cremations took place?

'Disturbed ground' is hardly accounted for by anyone, since it proves nothing. It only matters to you, for some strange reason (?).

It also matters to Mazurek, as he suggests potential reasons why the Nazis dug large pits, that now have little to nothing in them. You are not interested in an open minded research into the purpose of and activity inside the camp, you are only interested in finding reasons to believe there are few remains there.

It is quite reasonable, if an area of 60cm boreholes, 5m apart are all found to contain remains, to extrapolate the ground in between also has remains. The consistency within the bore holes samples, is not the same, showing that the consistency between them, is also likely not be consistent. That shows the extent that the Nazis mixed the cremains into the ground, which is consistent with witness descriptions of the reburial of the cremains.

All were NOT found to contain remains. Only about 69% were, even within drawn 'graves'.

69% is not "only".

If the Nazis 'mixed cremains' then you are extra-screwed, since now you are admitting that all corpse remains throughout the area will be a volume that is only partly crematory remains, always diluted by other materials. Is this your final answer?

It is my final answer. I am not screwed, for the following reasons;

1 - 69% is not only
2 - Mazurek's excavations stopped as soon as he encountered significant areas of remains
3 - Various areas have not been excavated.

You are desperately ignoring or playing down, the amount of remains and dug up ground found, as you completely ignore constructing any evidenced narrative, to prove what the Nazis were up to, digging big pits and cremating remains.

...How biased am I, Nessie? Care to quantify it? Actually, we can even visualize it: how many of the graves in the heat map should be red or orange instead of gray and blue/green? Please refer to the excavation reports and show how they support your assessment.

You are very biased, your aim is to minimise what has been found and pretend it is not significant, as you ignore the eyewitness, documentary and circumstantial evidence of mass murders. The excavation reports corroborate the witness claims that the Nazis dug a series of large pits (which you do not dispute), buried and then exhumed corpses (hence the pits with no corpses in them) and then cremated corpses (hence areas with 69% of boreholes finding traces of human remains). Mazurek's excavations did not find huge quantities, because it was avoiding digging areas where there were signs of huge quantities.

[Nessie]

...

Sobibor alleges 250,000 corpses buried on-site (requiring some 100 million kilograms of wood to cremate, with massive corresponding grave volume needed for the insane amounts of charcoal/wood)...

That is a biased, so-called revisionist calculation, contradicted by the eyewitness descriptions of the pyres and how much wood was used at the Dresden and Ohurdruf pyres.

There is also the issue of displaced soil/sand -- where is it? If these disturbed areas with sparse corpse remains were ever chock-full of crematory contents (wood/corpses), then where was the soil/sand placed during that time, and why is it now instead back in the graves (instead of corpses/wood)? Anywhere it was piled would show as 'disturbed ground', flagging it for excavation but we don't find any mounds of moved/displaced soil piled anywhere. Instead, we find the soil (gray sand) still within the alleged 'graves', occupying the vast majority of "grave" volume.

It is likely that the Nazis dug more graves than they needed, as they switched to cremations. They were refilled.

So, where are the 250,000 Jews? They cannot be at Sobibor's Camp III -- the evidence strictly forbids it.

The eyewitness, documentary and circumstantial evidence supports they are buried at the site. You then misrepresent what the archaeologists found, as only 69%!. Then, to make it is complete win for me, you cannot evidence what happened to the c250,000 Jews sent to Sobibor.

[Nessie]

Why Callifangers, that's going to lead in to 'Where'd they go?'.

That's very true, and I think Nessie and the rest of us would all have to agree that is a great question. The problem is, Nessie is the one who claims to have already answered it.

The graves are mapped and dug... but the evidence fits the revisionist view like a glove.

Only 69% is not a very good fit. Finding large pits is not a very good fit. When you say "the evidence" you really mean, a little part of the evidence that you cherry-picked. The rest of the evidence, is not a very good fit.

[Callafangers]

...There was only a 6% hit rate (positive drills) per hectare, and only a 69% hit rate even within the "graves" drawn. Mazurek consistently shows sparse remains where Kola had indicated dense saturation, explicitly documenting findings as 'patchy', 'barren', 'thin layers', etc., across all major graves....

Interesting use of the word "only". I get only 6%, but not only 69%.

Yes, Nessie, that's how this works. Core-drilling a grid pattern is not a form of legitimate mapping (as is excavation) -- it is a form of reconnaissance. Kola went about sampling the Sobibor Camp III site on a per-hectare basis and of his drills per hectare, he is at about a 7% hit rate (correction from 6%; 128/1805 = ~7%). In other words, only 7% of the areas he chose to reconnoiter had drill positives -- his reconnaissance had a 7% success rate.

As for his 69%, you are missing the point. Kola drew his grave boundaries arbitrarily around perceived clusters for which their total number of drills was 185. Given the spacing of 5m apart and the fact Kola biases the sampling/positive rate by conducting extra drills in positive areas, this is already a stretch (or violation) in terms of extrapolation to a certain grave density. But taking it a step further, Kola simply omits the fact that almost one-third (31%, or 57 drills) of his samples within those "graves" were completely negative!

Mazurek gave various reasons, it was a grave used for cremations, it was emptied of corpses, or it was dug but never used.

Nessie, you know better than this: none of these claims from Mazurek are evidenced. The inferences he draws here are based on his assumptions of the orthodox history, having nothing to do with his findings.

Wrong, his assumptions are based on what he found. The Nazis dug a huge pit and then left little to nothing in it. Of course, you are not interested in what that is, or at least trying to evidence a chronological narrative that explains it. You are only interested in reinforcing your desired belief, that far fewer people were buried at the camp, than the evidence from eyewitnesses, documents and circumstances proves.

Only you would say that an empty pit is evidence of a full pit. Ridiculous. Even if one accepts your absurd logic (empty pit as evidence), you still need to explain where the emptied contents actually ended up, since they are not in the grave.

...No -- it is a fact that Kola uses the blanket description of Grave 2 as a "crematory grave" (direct quote), only for Mazurek to audit this via excavation and determine only scattered remains. There is no ambiguity here.

Is a crematory grave, one that cremains were buried in, or one when cremations took place?

Kola's full description of Grave 2:

Grave No. 2. Located in the western part of hectare XVII, south of the monument-mound. It was marked by 28 holes. Its horizontal grid is irregular, with an area of ​​at least 20 x 25 m – with the longer edge aligned north-west – and a depth of approximately 4.00 m. It is a cremation grave.

There are no reports of cremation pyres therein. He is describing it as being of human cremation contents.

'Disturbed ground' is hardly accounted for by anyone, since it proves nothing. It only matters to you, for some strange reason (?).

It also matters to Mazurek, as he suggests potential reasons why the Nazis dug large pits, that now have little to nothing in them. You are not interested in an open minded research into the purpose of and activity inside the camp, you are only interested in finding reasons to believe there are few remains there.

Nessie, this is more goofy nonsense. Mazurek can 'suggest' whatever he wants, you can too -- no one cares. We are studying the forensics, here. I am not "finding reasons to believe" anything other than what is described and documented in the forensic investigations. You are deflecting onto witness narratives and the like because you know the forensic case is failing you, 100%.

69% is not "only".

69% is definitely "only" when the graves are drawn in such a way that presents them as 100% -- which is exactly what Kola did. Anything less than 100% suggests incontiguity. Being far less than 100% (e.g. 69%) confirms sparseness/patchiness at most (completely invalidating the larger 'grave' drawing, especially given postwar mixing/dilution).

If the Nazis 'mixed cremains' then you are extra-screwed, since now you are admitting that all corpse remains throughout the area will be a volume that is only partly crematory remains, always diluted by other materials. Is this your final answer?

It is my final answer.

Okay, your final answer is that the Nazis mixed all cremains with sand. What percentage are you conceding, here? Did they do a 50/50 mix? If so, that is 50% of the grave volume gone, unavailable for 'grave' (corpse/ash) calculations -- *poof*.

...How biased am I, Nessie? Care to quantify it? Actually, we can even visualize it: how many of the graves in the heat map should be red or orange instead of gray and blue/green? Please refer to the excavation reports and show how they support your assessment.

You are very biased, your aim is to minimise what has been found and pretend it is not significant, as you ignore the eyewitness, documentary and circumstantial evidence of mass murders. The excavation reports corroborate the witness claims that the Nazis dug a series of large pits (which you do not dispute), buried and then exhumed corpses (hence the pits with no corpses in them) and then cremated corpses (hence areas with 69% of boreholes finding traces of human remains). Mazurek's excavations did not find huge quantities, because it was avoiding digging areas where there were signs of huge quantities.

I asked you to quantify it. Please quantify just how inaccurate my estimates are. I provided the 'heat map' precisely to aid these sort of discussions. Which areas should be orange/red instead of gray/blue?

[Callafangers]

That is a biased, so-called revisionist calculation, contradicted by the eyewitness descriptions of the pyres and how much wood was used at the Dresden and Ohurdruf pyres.

Simply bonkers for you to bring up Dresden again when we have conclusively shown that your representation (of very little wood and extreme volume reduction) as false. You never responded to the conclusive evidence opposing you here:

viewtopic.php?t=566

Here's a summary/excerpt:

More slogans and BS from you [Nessie]. We have broken down Dresden throughout this thread. There is zero evidence of the fuel absolutely required (given endothermic demand per corpse of ~200-300 megajoules/MJ) to break the corpses down to a handful of cubic meters (and your only documented 'evidence' that this was ever the case comes from the now-demystified assertion of Frederick Taylor, who was not speaking to all cremations that had taken place). There is not a shred of evidence that Dresden involved massive reductions in corpse volume capable of assisting your arguments on Reinhardt camps.

Nobody (certainly not myself) has denied that Dresden entailed 'partial cremations' but how in the hell does this assist your claim that millions of Jews could fit underneath the relatively modest ground disturbances (especially when accounting for limited ash/cremains proportions in core samples) at Treblinka, Sobibor, Belzec? You need the corpse volume to have been maximally reduced, given you are already screwed on grave volume and archaeological findings. And you also need to explain what became of the wood ash and the displaced soil. News flash: you do none of this as you keep speaking slogans about 'the evidence', all while you ignore the evidence.

Lol, Nessie. Still a , it seems.

There is also the issue of displaced soil/sand -- where is it? If these disturbed areas with sparse corpse remains were ever chock-full of crematory contents (wood/corpses), then where was the soil/sand placed during that time, and why is it now instead back in the graves (instead of corpses/wood)? Anywhere it was piled would show as 'disturbed ground', flagging it for excavation but we don't find any mounds of moved/displaced soil piled anywhere. Instead, we find the soil (gray sand) still within the alleged 'graves', occupying the vast majority of "grave" volume.

It is likely that the Nazis dug more graves than they needed, as they switched to cremations. They were refilled.

Lol, what?

Nessie, if there are ~13,000m3 of soil removed to make room for Jewish corpses and hundreds of millions of KG of wood charcoal, where did the soil go?

Your "refilled" logic works against you -- this is you admitting that places where we still see unburnt corpses are distinct from places where we see burnt ones, and that one or both are mostly soil-filled ("refilled", as you put it)!

You keep forgetting that you need to explain where the volume of corpses is at. You admitting that massive regions of the 'graves' are mostly soil does not help you.