Why does SanityCheck evade the Physical Evidence Question?

[Callafangers]

Why does SanityCheck (anti-revisionist 'Holocaust' academia's leading man) so strongly avoid all matters of physical evidence with regard to 'Holocaust' evidence? In the past, one could give the benefit of the doubt because there were other anti-revisionist scholars at least engaging in the physical debate, when the debate appeared evolving or inconclusive. During this time, one could interpret SanityCheck's silence on all physical evidence matters as being due to his reasonable deference to others like Roberto Muehlenkamp, who was the HolocaustControversies blog's unofficial physical evidence specialist until the mid-2010s. But after revisionism's more recent works -- and especially following C. Mattogno's "The Operation Reinhard Camps" -- Muehlenkamp went radio silent and there has been no anti-revisionist scholar capable of producing (nor even attempting) a compelling rebuttal on any of the physical arguments.

Not on FeCN levels nor crematoria use/maintenance at Birkenau...
Not on grave volumes nor contents at any of the major camps...
Not on fuel needs and evidence at any of the major camps...

It certainly appears that there are no counter-arguments to the current revisionist position on physical evidence (and lack thereof) for the 'Holocaust'. This seems to concede that this paramount category of the debate has been won, completely -- even after stress-tested to the maximum by anti-revisionists giving it their best shot.

If SanityCheck evades the physical evidence debate, that's fine -- but he should at least be able to name one single person who does not evade and can refute it meaningfully.

[HansHill]

HansHill asking Dr Terry to comment on the technical aspects of the Prussian Blue question, specifically what he bases his belief they are "unconvincing" - January 13th 2026

viewtopic.php?p=20931#p20931

HansHill asking Dr Terry for an update / comment on the MGK vs HC debate that appears to have gone silent since 2013 - October 11th 2025:

viewtopic.php?t=560

[borjastick]

It's an interesting question and the answer in my opinion is because physical evidence and related matters is finite, absolute and thus if they go into that cul de sac, they can get compromised and shown up. Thus they argue petty childish distractions such as 'well if they didn't die in the camps where did they go?' and 'muh you cannot prove they went east so they must have died in the camps'. Immature stuff like that because they have a bad case of Trump Derangement Syndrome or similar.

It's the same with evidential arguments about the way thousands of tons of cremains were disposed of. They have never used a critical bone in their puny bodies to think again about the claims that the cremains were spread on local fields as fertilizer and chucked into the river to gently drift away and never been seen again. Both arguments are beyond dumb but are used as suppression tactics or comfort blankets to the stupid.

[PrudentRegret]

Muehlenkamp did the Revisionist camp a huge favor by putting enormous effort into making the strongest possible case for the physical and logistical possibility of the alleged cremation operations. He took absurdly generous assumptions (to his own case) every single step of the way and was still left without any plausible explanation for the feasibility of the operation.

Reading Muehlenkamp's analysis pushed me even stronger towards Revisionism than Mattogno's analysis because it frames how someone even highly motivated to support those claims simply cannot do so. That is a greater benefit to Revisionism than mainstream historians like SanityCheck being quiet on the matter.

If the mainstream maintained perfect collaboration in not even attempting to respond to those Revisionist critiques, there would still be an air of ambiguity- "Maybe if they tried they could come up with a plausible explanation", well they did try but they couldn't. This is also why HolocaustControversies is not well regarded by the mainstream by the way. They are defecting from the only tactic that maintains the plausibility of the mainstream claims - don't respond to criticisms because your response will only help show the strength of the criticisms.

I have held, reading between the lines, that SanityCheck knows the Treblinka extermination and cremation operation is wildly exaggerated at best, but he just doesn't consider that fact to be important. So that's how he rationalizes it- "even if Revisionists are right it doesn't matter."

[Archie]

Muehlenkamp did the Revisionist camp a huge favor by putting enormous effort into making the strongest possible case for the physical and logistical possibility of the alleged cremation operations. He took absurdly generous assumptions (to his own case) every single step of the way and was still left without any plausible explanation for the feasibility of the operation.

Spot on, PR. I occasionally use the term "Muehlenkamp math" to refer to this. See here, for example: viewtopic.php?t=202

In his discussion of grave space, in order to make the bodies fit, Muehlenkamp assumed tremendous decomposition and compression of bodies and that they waited for this to happen and topped off the graves, all in order to minimize the amount of grave space (which he just assumes they were doing even though the grave areas are very haphazard). And that's just one of many fanciful assumptions. I was, uh, okay. Obviously, the bodies don't fit if you are having to resort to all this in an attempt to reach the outer fringe of possibility.

I agree that it's probably wiser for them tactically to leave some of the gaps unexplained. It's sort of like how with Holocaust movies and TV you'll notice that a lot of the "scenes" in textual sources (like people getting thrown alive into a bonfire) are never portrayed on the screen. Filmmakers would probably claim this was for reasons of taste and sensitivity, but I think a big reason is that a lot of scenes would come off as totally ridiculous and unbelievable. The inverse of that is a key concept of Denierbud's documentaries. He shows you visually what these stories would actually look like in physical reality, and the absurdity becomes immediately apparent. Muehlenkamp makes the mistake of hunting for a viable scenario and unwittingly shows just how implausible it is.

If the mainstream maintained perfect collaboration in not even attempting to respond to those Revisionist critiques, there would still be an air of ambiguity- "Maybe if they tried they could come up with a plausible explanation", well they did try but they couldn't. This is also why HolocaustControversies is not well regarded by the mainstream by the way. They are defecting from the only tactic that maintains the plausibility of the mainstream claims - don't respond to criticisms because your response will only help show the strength of the criticisms.

Yes, the mainstream is probably wise not to open the door to these discussions at all. It's just pushing over the first domino. They also understand that if you do try to address these points, there is some risk that you'll just draw more attention to all the problems to begin with. For example, most people have never thought out the cremation capacity at Auschwitz and they would like to keep it that way. The ideal for them would be to keep doubts about the Holocaust completely contained and to provide rebuttals on a strict need-to-know basis. But practically speaking, given that there are people who have been exposed to the problems with the Holocaust story, they probably do see the need to have some responses available, but preferably something very discreet and unofficial.

I would guess there are mixed opinions on HC. At best they are a sort of black ops mercenary unit. Some might see them as needed to take care for some of the dirty work but it's kept very much at arms length. Matt Cockerill's strategy was I suspect more frowned upon because he was trying to popularize anti-denial content for a wider audience. That I don't think they want at all since it will surely backfire. No surprise he's not doing it anymore.

[TlsMS93]

The exterminationists like to present narratives, not forensic examinations in the field, and how this fits with the witnesses' narrative, such as more than one body per muffle being cremated. This was never tested, nor did the engineer responsible claim it was sustainable, but it's a fundamental piece of their belief; otherwise, the 1.1 million figure falls apart. The same applies to gassing day and night without stopping, disregarding the bottleneck this creates, since the issue of cremating multiple people per muffle is not established by them. Where did the gassing accumulate day and night then?

We can do the same with anything they claim, and they keep saying that just because we don't understand how it was possible doesn't mean it didn't happen. Like, they didn't conduct a practical test to confirm what I'm arguing, so you should accept it at face value.

[Callafangers]

Many great points made here but, all jabs aside, I am genuinely interested in the answer to the question of the OP: "Why does SanityCheck evade the Physical Evidence Question?"

I do not expect he will actually answer this question. We will have to assume he has a busy schedule and didn't come across this thread.

I think the real reason is simple: physical evidence can be falsified -- it involves testable, risky predictions which can then be conclusively determined one way or another. The 'Holocaust' narrative simply cannot be upheld with these sorts of tests, as it has consistently failed every single one of them.

Thus, to not engage altogether with this particular question is the only viable approach, especially now that the 'stress-testing' has already been maxed-out and there are no more viable pathways to argue favorably for the exterminationist narrative, in terms of physical/forensic evidence. Muehlenkamp made sure of that.

Just imagine that Nessie is now the world's expert in physical evidence for Holocaust orthodoxy.

[Archie]

I am genuinely interested in the answer to the question of the OP

If I had to guess, part of it is probably that he probably likes to play to his strengths. On historical points, the person who is familiar with (or has access to) more material/more sources has an advantage. But on technical topics, he sees people on the revisionist side with a stronger background, and so he knows he's much more likely to get owned on those points. Muehlenkamp seems to have been HC's guru on the technical topics, but as he seems to be retired/semi-retired they could probably use a new recruit. Blake from RODOH would actually not be bad for that job, but he's probably a bit too reasonable/insufficiently orthodox for HC.

Traditionally, the Holocaust side basically never mentioned physical evidence at all. And this still seems to be largely true in the mainstream. Only very online anti-revisionists will talk up supposed physical evidence. These bluffs are purely done in hopes of preempting revisionist attacks.

[Callafangers]

If I had to guess, part of it is probably that he probably likes to play to his strengths.

I agree but I would like to see him admit this. It would show sincerity, integrity. The problem is, it would also reveal what I would consider an obvious truth: that despite his decades of immersion in Holocaust debate, he still lacks confidence in his ability to tackle physical evidence, which I imagine he would simultaneously portray to his peers and students as irrelevant/weak/etc.

[Nessie]

...

Just imagine that Nessie is now the world's expert in physical evidence for Holocaust orthodoxy.

With regard to expertise, the biggest difference between historians and revisionists, is that historians do not think, because they cannot work something out, that means it cannot have happened. Historians understand that, especially where there has been a cover-up and evidence has been destroyed, there will be gaps which make explanation and understanding harder.

Most academics, as standard, do not stray outwith their field of expertise. A historian is not trained in thermodynamics, so they will not work on establishing how much wood is needed to burn corpses on a pyre. Instead, they gather the evidence that then proves pyres happened, with eyewitness statements, circumstantial evidence and the finds of archaeological surveys. Once proof is established that pyres were used, the historian is not going to spend time trying to work out how they happened, a task that involves knowledge outwith their expertise.

Not that pyres are complicated. To me, someone who has light many a camp fire of different types, placing meat on top of a metal grill and lighting wood underneath, self-evidently can be made to catch light and burn. The images of pyres at Dresden and Ohrdruf reinforce that. I don't take the witness descriptions literally, as it is not normal practice to do so. I recognise how emotive descriptions can be and that the SS camp staff are adamant that after experimentation, they got the corpses to burn. We even know the name of the SS officer who became the expert in setting pyres.

As much as revisionists think it is odd that historians are accepting of the pyres, it is odd to historians that revisionists doubt them. For historians, the claim that the pyres could not have worked as evidenced, therefore there were no such pyres, does not work as an argument. Instead, they prefer the evidence, gap ridden as it is, that proves pyres were used and the details of how they worked, is outwith their expertise.

[Callafangers]

Not that pyres are complicated. To me, someone who has light many a camp fire of different types, placing meat on top of a metal grill and lighting wood underneath, self-evidently can be made to catch light and burn.

Wow, Nessie. I have never seen it that way. I think I believe in the Holocaust now.

[HansHill]

Not that pyres are complicated. To me, someone who has light many a camp fire of different types, placing meat on top of a metal grill and lighting wood underneath, self-evidently can be made to catch light and burn.

Wow, Nessie. I have never seen it that way. I think I believe in the Holocaust now.

You know hwut, just the other day i was out there in muh yard, mindin' my own business. Grillin' a fine set of porterhouse steaks. Arlen's finest. Well I turned to yell at Bobby (that boy ain't right) and when I looked back, Good Lord, them steaks had evaporated into dust. I tell ya hwut.

[TlsMS93]

If exterminationist historians don't want to know how this was possible, that's their problem; but why they want the rest of the world to swallow it, I don't know either.

[bombsaway]

For Holocaust historians I would guess this question is regarded similarly to how 9/11 historians view the objections of 'controlled demolition' believers. Would be very shocked if most of them devoted considerable time to this.

For historians, pretty much any theory about a mass event is going to be automatically disqualified if the positive evidence isn't there. Holocaust revisionists don't have it, they only have weak circumstantial evidence. The same applies to 9/11 revisionists.

It's not considered a serious debate. You're viewed as curiosities at best, most don't even care this much. SanityCheck is one of the few mainstream historians interested enough to devote considerable time to revisionist objections. I don't know specifically where the interest lies for him, but doesn't seem like it's in the science - which lies outside his core knowledge base and experience.

[Nessie]

... SanityCheck is one of the few mainstream historians interested enough to devote considerable time to revisionist objections. I don't know specifically where the interest lies for him, but doesn't seem like it's in the science - which lies outside his core knowledge base and experience.

This is his bio on the Exeter University website;

https://sites.exeter.ac.uk/holocaustand ... las-terry/

The Holocaust is such a huge topic, that the Holocaust historians specialise. The specialisms listed include "German occupation of the Soviet Union and Poland, as well as the Holocaust from a number of angles, including Allied wartime knowledge of the Holocaust, and the extermination camps of Auschwitz and Chelmno" and "He has also been recognised as “the UK’s foremost academic” (The Observer) on the subject of Holocaust denial..."

You described revisionism as a curiosity at best, which is why he is one of the very few who have bothered to study the topic of Holocaust denial/revisionism. You are right to acknowledge he is not a scientist. I don't think the revisionists here get that if they want to discuss the science, they would be better trying to find a scientist, rather than a historian to talk to.

By scientist, I mean, for example, a doctor with CO or HCN poisoning as a speciality, to talk about issues such as reported skin discolouration, or lack thereof. Or a civil engineer who specialises in concrete, who can talk about the alleged lack of holes in the Krema roofs. Or a ventilation engineer, to discuss issues over the venting of the gas chambers. Or an archaeologist, who can explain the geophysical and other finds at the camps.

I suspect because Holocaust revisionist/denial is so controversial and seen by many as dangerous hate speech, it will be hard to get a relevant academic to discuss the science. But, maybe, like Popular Mechanics took on the 9/11 conspiracy theorists, some credible person or organisation can be persuaded to join in the debate.