Why does SanityCheck evade the Physical Evidence Question?

[Callafangers]

SanityCheck's latest response is dead in the water, right out the gate:

You've got yourself into quite the pickle with falsification, by ignoring how historical claims can be made with different lines and types of evidence. The death tolls for the extermination camps are one example - they are not made based on counting corpses, or quantifying ash and cremains, but from documents, reports and eyewitness accounts which have been cross-checked against each other.

It appears that SC/Terry underappreciates one of my earlier statements:

When SC/Terry makes the claim that 'the Holocaust happened', he is necessarily (per his own narrative) claiming there are millions of Jews under these camps.

You cannot say, "historically, there were 800,000 Jews buried at exactly X location" while simultaneously not be saying, "there are scientifically-verifiable traces of the scale upwards of 800,000 Jews buried at exactly X location." This holds true unless you can explain within reason how these traces (e.g., vast volumes of stratified ash/bone equivalent to city populations, fuel logistics at unprecedented scales) may have disappeared. Either way, you are well-within the realm of science; not just historiography.

Let's continue:

The fact of cremation at these camps is apparently conceded by revisionists, but they dispute the scale (quantity), while failing to confirm their own predictions, i.e. the documented, named deportees and prisoners showing up somewhere else statistically or physically in the historical record.

Revisionists concede some cremations (e.g., disease/ghetto corpses, rubbish), but the exterminationist narrative demands proof of its core positive claim -- industrial-scale gassings/burials/cremations -- first, via testable physical evidence, before we must trace alternative fates; your "where did they go?" inversion dodges this burden, as no "convergence" excuses absent mega-graves/fuel records when digs predictably yield economic debris, not Holocaust-scale slaughter. Networks of other sites expand your conspiracy without resolving AR impossibilities, merely multiplying unproven assertions.

Non-returning deportees and other Jews who died locally, if otherwise not known from sources naming names, are missing presumed dead, as is the case for others who did not return from deportation or military service or who were obliterated or killed fleeing battles and violence.


The significance of the other sites in the networks is far greater than you seem to think; they form over half of the death toll for the Holocaust calculated since Hilberg, the camps under half, and those numbers include deportees to Auschwitz whose deaths are recorded in the incomplete surviving death books as well as deaths of these deportees noted in other KZ death books and lists.

There's also the fact that the Germans practiced mass cremation at a far greater number of sites than just the death camps. For the prewar borders of Poland an incomplete list would include:

All of the above is yet another blatant evasion of the question of verifiable, measurable physical evidence. Everyone here is familiar with your back-of-the-hand familiarity with the documentation of the so-called 'Holocaust'. Cheers to you, that's impressive in its own right, but it is not applicable/relevant to the questions being put forth in this thread. You have once again simply dodged the measurable (falsifiable) aspects of this investigation, relying again on some 'inductive documentary convergence' that overlooks inconsistencies, while dodging that which is testable or black-and-white:

- FeCN/Prussian Blue at Birkenau (Dismissal Unchallenged):
- Rudolf comprehensively modeled exposure (similar to delousing chambers); FeCN highly stable (trivial weathering, esp. unweathered samples like ceilings).
- SC Failure: No rebuttal to modeling/stability; reiterates general factors (exposure/ventilation) without specifics.

- Birkenau Crematoria Capacity/Maintenance (Unaddressed):
- No refractory brick maintenance records matching alleged scale; air photos show no constant/expected cremation activity.
- SC Failure: Ignores entirely; prior SC post vaguely noted multi-corpse/T4 parallels but no maintenance/air photo response.

- Overlapping Cremations Infeasibility (Unaddressed Math):
- Max ~10-15% time reduction (UHV: lean corpses ~40k kcal avail., 54% furnace efficiency → ~30-40k kcal usable vs. 200k-330k kcal demand/corpse).
- Efficiency losses from multi-corpse (airflow/draft/timing); requires implausibly well-fed Jews (~3k cal/day diets).
- SC Failure: No engagement with calcs/efficiency; vaguely cites multi-corpse feasibility without quantification.

- Sobibor Grave Volumes/Contents (Specifics Unaddressed):
- Kola's initial dense Graves 1/2 contradicted by Mazurek excavations (Grave 1 empty; Grave 2/7 mostly empty).
- Objective totals: 2,702–17,010 corpses (detailed per-grave ranges); refutes high-density claims.
- SC Failure: No Sobibor mention; Belzec Kola focus ignores contradictions/excavation discrepancies.

- AR Fuel/Wood Needs Scale (Minimally Addressed):
- Treblinka: ~350kg/corpse × 800k = 280M kg (largest burning ever; unprecedented, unevidenced "local" supply).
- No records/Polish witnesses to relentless smoke/mushroom clouds near homes.
- SC Failure: Cites general/local wood (e.g., Waldkommando) but ignores total scale/math; witnesses only for stench (not smoke volume).

- Falsifiability/Scientific Legitimacy (Partially Addressed but Incomplete):
- Monuments legally block further excavation; exterminationist claims unfalsifiable (vs. revisionist testable predictions).
- SC Failure: Rejects as misapplied (e.g., memorials common) but doesn't counter monument-specific prevention or prior digs' sparsity (e.g., Lukasciewicz/Mazurek/Sturdy-Colls showing economic ops, not mass graves).

Overall: SC pivots to historical narratives/Belzec (e.g., train-jumpers, regional killings) without falsifying physical/math specifics; reinforces "revisionists must locate deportees" but evades direct physical rebuttals.

Will you address these directly?

You again make qualitative statements in the latter part of your last reply, while simultaneously dodging quantification (again, zero-risk, unfalsifiable):

"The sheer range of cremation sites just in the Government-General - approximately 34 more known cases above and beyond the three AR camps - suggests that it was significantly easier to organise open air pyres than is claimed by revisionists..."

"No doubt revisionist dogma will try to apply the exaggerated wood requirements..."

What are the wood requirements, Dr. Terry? Just how "easy" was it to organize open-air pyres? Describe the process.

[Stubble]

Brief recap:

Nick- The Rudolf Report is refuted by the Polish team

No, he isn't. Green went the furthest with an attempt at refutation and ended up with 'chemistry is not the science'.

Nick- Huge Mass Graves at the Bug river sites are proven.

No, at least not in a quantity suitable for the claim. If you expect me to believe that the population of Seattle was buried in a 2 acre plot (the extermination area at Treblinka II), you are going to have to show me where. This applies equally with a quarter of a million at Sobibor etc. The physical evidence such as it is does not support the claim, neither does the Polish Commission report that turned up, what exactly? At Treblinka II? I believe the exact words from the 13 Apostles of Treblinka were 'no mass graves were found'. You can't hand wave that away with a piece of paper and some words. The history as given does not comport with reality.

Nick- holocaust deniers have no explanation.

This is true but misleading. You see, witch deniers have no explanation for Martha being seen riding her broomstick to have intercourse with the devil. That doesn't therefore mean that she did.

Furthermore, the orthodoxy can not explain the inexplicable either. You and others simply rely on ignorance and spout things like 'Rudolf is refuted' and 'Huge mass graves are proven' as if it is true, lean on your credentials, and tell everyone 'nothing to see here'.

You have made a series of demonstrably false statements in this thread.

If I have somehow missed in the neighborhood of 4,000,000 corpses in 'Huge Mass Graves', show me. It seems like that kind of pile of corpses would, you know, stick out. If you can't, it doesn't follow that my position is incorrect because I can't show you a footprint.

After the war jews flooded Austria to a point that it was creating unease with the populace as they left Europe. This is laid out in the refugee files. jews during the war and immediately prior were leaving Europe. They went to south America, they went to Iran, they went to Palestine, they went to the Soviet Union, they went all over in numbers that we don't rightly know.

Korherr gives us a window, but, we can't rely on him because he was using admittedly corrupted aggregates and taking guesses. I'm not even sure if we can trust him on the population sent east. I don't like his dataset.

At some point, there must be a thorough accounting for the missing presumed dead. Cohorts have to be established and traced with their movements as we can ascertain analyzed.

You can't even tell me who is missing. It has been 80 years and we don't know who is missing. This borders on ridiculous. Time has been spent convincing me that 6,000,000 jews were murdered, but, almost no time has been spent showing me who they were.

With the Hungarian Cohort, already, just using mainstream sources, I can not come up with enough missing Hungarian jews to support the idea of over a quarter million of them being gassed at Auschwitz. There are not enough missing jews.

Nick, you need to support your argument with physical evidence, a slip of paper just won't do.

[SanityCheck]

You're not getting how the conventional claims have been revised and therefore, how they can continue to be revised.

Auschwitz should be considered first, because the camp largely operated with immediate cremation after the autumn of 1942, and also disposed of cremains far afield. There was therefore no match between any identifiable mass graves in Birkenau from the phase of burial prior to cremation, and the numbers deported, nor could any part of the site be investigated to locate quantifiable amounts of human remains or cremains that would bear any relation to the history of the camp and the historically feasible total.

The initial Soviet 4M number circulated among survivors and was 'justified' by extrapolating from estimated cremation capacities of the various crematoria, with pyres not quantified. The estimates for cremation capacities were contradicted by documents which were known to the subsequent Polish investigation but the 4M number had become totemic, and thus was not challenged inside Poland until the end of the communist era. In the west, historians often disregarded the Soviet-Polish claim to focus on documents and reports of deportations, which was the eventual method adopted by Franciszek Piper to arrive at a death toll of 1.1 million (which included Poles, Roma, and others, not just Jews gassed on arrival).

Piper's numbers have also proven to be revisable, especially regarding the Hungarian and Lodz actions, and there were already sources and studies pointing to what became confirmed by the early 2000s through new sources as well as tracking the outgoing movement of 'Depot' prisoners from May 1944 onwards: 25% of the Hungarian Jews were selected for work, with most sent out without having been registered. Andrzej Strzelecki then tracked the Lodz ghetto deportations in a similar way.

These revisions have lowered the overall maximum death toll, and further revisions can continue to do so, if they use historical evidence.

In addition to documents and testimonies, there is a good deal of visual evidence for Auschwitz-Birkenau, especially the so-called Bauleitung album showing the construction of the crematoria and their completion before being covered in earth, the Auschwitz album documenting the arrival and selection of a transport, the Sonderkommando photographs showing open air cremation as well as naked women moving outdoors, evidently towards the reactivated Bunker, and aerial photographs, which are snapshots - some show nothing because no transports arrived on the day of the photo, or transports had not yet arrived, some show what seem to be columns of people moving into the crematoria, some confirm the holes in the gas chamber roof, and some show smoke rising from the reactivated Bunkers site.

Despite dismantling and demolition, as well as the removal of crematorium parts, plus the conversion of Krema I to an air raid shelter, the ruins of the Birkenau crematoria in particular as well as other finds on-site such as gastight doors are deemed significant for confirming eyewitness testimonies as well as documents. Ventilation system parts found in the ruins were tested for cyanide in 1945 with a positive result. The mass grave and cremation area was surveyed, and there were later samples for human remains as well. The ash pond in Birkenau is emblematic of the cremation as well. All of this is 'physical evidence' in the strict sense. From the conventional POV, this evidence corroborates the testimonies, documents, reports and photographs. It cannot produce quantifiable results by itself. Dredging the Sola river would not have yielded any meaningful results, even if one figured out how to quantify bone fragments which might resist being dissolved in river water and carried with the current into the Vistula river and thence into the Baltic Sea.

Revisionists have made two attempts at a headshot to counter this, along with interminable, tedious, convoluted reinterpretative bollocks about the documents etc, and a hitherto insufficient engagement with the colossal number of eyewitness accounts.

The first to note is Mattogno's attempt to slow the cremation rate down below the documented and reported level, which actually has not nearly as much statistical effect as he and other revisionists would really like, since significant numbers were cremated in the open in 1942-3, again in a moment of overload in August 1943 when few crematoria were in working order, and again from May 1944 to the end of the summer when transports were at their peak. The Sonderkommando photos, air photo showing smoke rising from the Bunkers site, and Reich Justice Ministry inspection tour report noting pyres on their visit in June 1944, add to a mass of contemporary reports and testimonies about the open air cremations in 1944. This attempt isn't convincing, and Mattogno hasn't backed it up by showing the movement of the deportees elsewhere in the KZ system, or proven that they left it at all.

The other is the Leuchter-Rudolf tests of the crematoria for cyanide traces. Both found such traces, but not in the form of iron cyanides. The 'coup' as it was hailed back in the 1980s/1990s wasn't found convincing. Leuchter and Rudolf were judged to have failed to have proven this would be a genuinely falsifying test, i.e. that the conditions in homicidal gassings would have necessarily led to the formation of iron cyanide, and that we should expect non-iron cyanides to have persisted in ruins exposed to the elements for 40+ years or which were used only sporadically. (Rudolf only sampled Krema II of the five crematoria, so his actual results were remarkably limited, btw.)

Note how their results were explained with auxiliary hypotheses which sought to reconstruct the circumstances of homicidal gassings (with ventilation in the significant cases) compared with prolonged delousing fumigation gassings, and thus the test failed.

The revisionist thesis has further failed to clinch what would be the convincing falsification and require us to reevaluate the documents, reports and testimonies significantly, by showing what happened to the documented arrivals of deportees who were not registered in the camp from 1942 to May 1944 in particular, and to the discrepancy between deportees showing up in other camps or registered in Auschwitz from May 1944, and the documented numbers of deportees as a whole.

To protect the revisionist hypothesis, a variety of very weak auxiliary hypotheses have been proffered, while no convincing evidence has been forthcoming to support the 'they didn't die' hypothesis in what is now 37 going on 38 years since Leuchter, and almost 35 years since Rudolf did his tests and began his report.

The failure to locate the 'missing' Jews is why revisionism fits with Lakatos' model of a degenerating research programme that is destined to die off, Kuhn-style. It's certainly why revisionism isn't history.

[Stubble]

You're not getting it Nick.

Huge Mass Graves at the Bug River still don't exist in the volume necessary to accommodate the claim, Rudolf and his report are still not refuted (far from it, apparently, 'chemistry is not the science), and you still can't tell me where the jews I was told were in the ground at the Bug river went.

They aren't there man!

I see plenty of sauce and fixings on that plate of spaghetti that is your last post. We could talk about Battleship Auschwitz and the ever dropping death toll there.

There are plenty of holes in that hull, and she is smoking pretty good. I have turned my guns on the Bug River fleet, and the venerable HMS Einsatzgruppen. I want to send them to rest in the iron bottom sound that is 'holocaust historical claims over time'.

Regarding your assertion that I don't understand abandoned historical holocaust claims, you are dead wrong. I do. The most revealing to me is Majdanek however, not Auschwitz. The UFO propaganda art installation has it's own ironic place in history, and I feel that the thing needs to be taught in schools so people can understand just how over the top the claims have been.

Around 50,000 people died at this 'death camp' with 8, I mean 2 homicidal gas chambers.

Come on Nick, if 1/3 of the holocaust was Bug river, you need to show me. If 1/3rd was by bullet, again, let my eyes see. If 1/3rd was Auschwitz and the ghettos, well, I'm going to have to see it. Looking a the source documents from the German Authorities, I don't man.

The Nazi Mass Graves Registry that was in Berlin might help me see. You don't have a link for that one handy do you? I can't find it. My guess, it was stolen and crammed in a box some place and is currently behind the shelf under the other box labeled 'concise German documents of death figures in the camp system' or something to that effect, in the basement of the building the Soviet hid the death books in...

[bombsaway]

Huge Mass Graves at the Bug River still don't exist in the volume necessary to accommodate the claim, Rudolf and his report are still not refuted (far from it, apparently, 'chemistry is not the science)

Uou miss the point of 'chemistry is not the science' and of Rudolf's concession there, which is one of doubt about the physical arguments. Rudolf is saying you need to look at the whole thing in a more holistic way to disprove. There's no such subtlety with you, they're not at Treblinka - which means such and such elements of "the hoax" must be true. Maybe you've know Rudolf so you can ask him point blank. I suspect he disagrees with a lot of "amateurs" in the revisionist space but sees them as allies and supporters so doesn't want to step on their toes.

[Stubble]

How does Green's concession become Rudolf's? It's like you've never read the Rudolf report or the chemistry of Auschwitz.

Regarding talking to Rudolf, sure, next committee meeting when we all get together to plan, I don't know, whatever it is you think they plan and talk about, I'll ask him. FFS. The guy is a very busy man. I don't think he has the time to just sit and talk about random shit exterminationists say on the internet.

Jesus

[bombsaway]

How does Green's concession become Rudolf's? It's like you've never read the Rudolf report or the chemistry of Auschwitz.

Regarding talking to Rudolf, sure, next committee meeting when we all get together to plan, I don't know, whatever it is you think we plan and talk about, I'll ask him. FFS. The guy is a very busy man. I don't think he has the time to just sit and talk about random shit exterminationists say on the internet.

Jesus

I thought you might be taking classes with him as a student.

This is Rudolf's concession:

Furthermore, I am convinced that chemistry is not the science which can prove or refute any allegations about the Holocaust »rigorously«. We have several circumstantial evidences which, especially together with all the other evidence, allow us to come to the conclusion that the homicidal mass gassings as stated by the eye witnesses can not have taken place. But on the chemical argument no absolute certainty can be built.

[Stubble]

I was denied entry because of my research focus.

His words;

'I can't teach you what no one knows, you are in uncharted territory'

Basically

So no, I am not attending Holocaust Academy.

Regarding this 'concession', you need to read the chemistry of Auschwitz again. The man is now and has always been open to correction. If you think he's wrong, write a thesis. If it is good, I'm sure he will respond. Maybe you can show the man who should be a fucking professor at a prestigious university and should hold a doctorate where he made his egregious mistake somehow literally everyone has missed...

[bombsaway]

So he changed his mind, since he has made the concession you are saying. He takes back the concession.

[Stubble]

Stop being retarded. He simply remains open to correction.

[bombsaway]

Does he think that the chemistry argument alone rigorously refutes orthodoxy?

[Callafangers]

I thought you might be taking classes with him as a student.

This is Rudolf's concession

Furthermore, I am convinced that chemistry is not the science which can prove or refute any allegations about the Holocaust »rigorously«. We have several circumstantial evidences which, especially together with all the other evidence, allow us to come to the conclusion that the homicidal mass gassings as stated by the eye witnesses can not have taken place. But on the chemical argument no absolute certainty can be built.

Yes, on the chemistry of Birkenau alone, the conclusions can be meaningful and powerful but not absolute (rigorous). A more holistic assessment is needed for rigorousness and certainty, such as:

• Missing FeCN at Birkenau
• Missing refractory brick maintenance
• No plausible explanation for millions of corpses cremated without the above

• Lack of corpses underneath Treblinka, despite witness claims
• Lack of required cremation fuel at Treblinka
• Unearthed evidence better reflecting economic operations and sanitation measures
• No physical evidence of 'gas chambers'
• No plausible explanation for 800,000 corpses killed/cremated without the above

• Lack of corpses underneath Belzec, despite witness claims
• Lack of required cremation fuel at Belzec
• Unearthed evidence better reflecting economic operations and sanitation measures
• No physical evidence of 'gas chambers'
• No plausible explanation for 400,000 corpses killed/cremated without the above

• Lack of corpses underneath Sobibor, despite witness claims
• Lack of required cremation fuel at Sobibor
• Unearthed evidence better reflecting economic operations and sanitation measures
• No physical evidence of 'gas chambers'
• No plausible explanation for 250,000 corpses killed/cremated without the above

• Lack of corpses underneath Chelmno, despite witness claims
• Lack of required cremation fuel at Chelmno
• Unearthed evidence better reflecting economic operations and sanitation measures
• No physical evidence of 'gas vans'
• No plausible explanation for 200,000 corpses killed/cremated without the above

• Demonstrable pattern of falsehoods and embellishments
• Major motive and means to fabricate and embellish
• Systems protecting against open-ended investigation
• Many documents better supporting revisionist interpretations (written off as 'code-words', self-deception, etc.)

[Nazgul]

Dr. Terry, I’d like to highlight some operational points regarding Treblinka and Birkenau that are often overlooked:

Treblinka transports: Fahrplananordnung 587 shows that while trains arrived at Treblinka, they stopped at Zwangsarbeitslager für Juden and rail junctions for an average of about one hour, during which deportees were sorted and assigned.

Treblinka camp layout: The site contained an Arbeitslager and two Judenlager, meaning that thousands of deportees were temporarily housed or sent onward to forced labor, rather than killed immediately.

Local civilian observation: Marion Olszuk, a farmer near Treblinka, saw routine activity, bartering, and only once noted a bad smell, with no evidence of large-scale killing.

Birkenau model: Ramp Kommando Pierre Berg, along with his female colleague, never observed immediate death of selected deportees, although they understood the selection process. This mirrors what we see at Treblinka — ramp selection creates the perception of mortality, but the majority of deportees were sent on to labor.

Aktion 14f13 parallel: The Nazi euthanasia program targeted all nationalities of prisoners deemed unfit for work. While criminal and brutal, it shows how selection and killing of specific individuals can create the impression of mass murder targeting Jews exclusively, even when the program had a broader scope.

Taken together, these points suggest that both Treblinka and Birkenau functioned largely as processing and redistribution hubs, with immediate killing limited to a subset of deportees. Ramp observations and operational records show the majority were alive and sent onward, creating a potential illusion of universal immediate extermination.

Finally, it’s important to note that there is no need to invoke gas chambers or exaggerated claims to recognize the suffering of Jews. Being caught, processed, and transported in a war zone where tens of millions were dying meant that deportees were literally in the crossfire — exposed to starvation, disease, forced labor, and constant threat. Their suffering was real and immense, even without embellishment.

[bombsaway]

Yes, on the chemistry of Birkenau alone, the conclusions can be meaningful and powerful but not absolute (rigorous). A more holistic assessment is needed for rigorousness and certainty

What does this mean and why? The conclusions might be wrong, you're saying? Is this a question of probabilities?