Why does SanityCheck evade the Physical Evidence Question?

[Stubble]

And, you know, GPR/LIDAR, limited excavations and the 13 Apostles.

How about Sobibor then, where did they bury a quarter of a million people? The graves that have human remains have mostly bodies, buried in a manner that appears consistent with SOP. there are some scattered cremains, but nothing close to the claim. Same with grave space. Fangers has an excellent breakdown in his thread.

Maybe Belzec is different?

I know you've already seen this link, I don't know if you have listened to it, but, it bears repeating and it has a catchy hook;

https://odysee.com/@UncleSvenAgain:3/BelzecCase:9

it never ends with you. It's a loop de loop of inanity. You brought up maps, now we're moving on. I've addressed these before, but we'll just end up talking about maps again soon enough.

Dude, you unironically said they buried the dead outside the wire in the trees and shit. You actually said that, with a straight face.

This is what the camp would have to look like;



It doesn't.

[HansHill]

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.

Can you explain the part highlighted in bold please? Or is this mistaken?

For those paying attention in this thread, this is a legitimate Revisionist critique of the Markiewicz methodology. I have raised this point three times now and i dont think Dr Terry is reading or responding to my points so i have asked him here to explain or address this here.

Perhaps a mod can review and draw it to Dr Teery’s attention on the third (fourth?) time of asking.

[Stubble]

.

Oops

[bombsaway]

Dude, you unironically said they buried the dead outside the wire in the trees and shit. You actually said that, with a straight face.

No. They buried them and then over the next 70 years trees grew in that area.

[Callafangers]

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.

Can you explain the part highlighted in bold please? Or is this mistaken?

For those paying attention in this thread, this is a legitimate Revisionist critique of the Markiewicz methodology. I have raised this point three times now and i dont think Dr Terry is reading or responding to my points so i have asked him here to explain or address this here.

Perhaps a mod can review and draw it to Dr Teery’s attention on the third (fourth?) time of asking.

You know, in a roundabout way, his evasion of this physical evidence question is actually on-topic with the current thread.

[Stubble]

[...]

Replied in appropriate thread;
viewtopic.php?p=21996#p21996

[Callafangers]

On physical evidence:

I'll be honest with you. I don't even care enough to have read any of the chemistry stuff in this debate.

Fifty-six (56) Olympic sized swimming pools chock-filled with Jews at Treblinka! Oh wait, nevermind...

‍

Lol.

[Stubble]

And to think, Auschwitz only had the one pool...

I think it bears remarking that no one wants to throw a single witness out of the Auschwitz pool, even if he does look like jaws when he back strokes, but, folks seem almost eager to absolutely drive a bus over the Treblinka witnesses without hesitation. Well, except for the part where they saw a homicidal gas chamber and a 30 foot flaming pit behind a fake hospital into which jews were thrown. Those we keep, we just lose the mass graves part, since, those don't exist. So, you know, people just died in transit and were buried where they died like in Oregon Trail, only, they didn't die of dysentery, they were suffocated in a chlorinated lime cattle car of death...

Why not 88% of the transports instead of just a measly 80%?

o/

[HansHill]

You know, in a roundabout way, his evasion of this physical evidence question is actually on-topic with the current thread.

[SanityCheck]

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.

Can you explain the part highlighted in bold please? Or is this mistaken?

For those paying attention in this thread, this is a legitimate Revisionist critique of the Markiewicz methodology. I have raised this point three times now and i dont think Dr Terry is reading or responding to my points so i have asked him here to explain or address this here.

Perhaps a mod can review and draw it to Dr Teery’s attention on the third (fourth?) time of asking.

Been busy with Real History, so haven't had a chance to reply.

The point is that Leuchter and Rudolf's sample results can be explained on their own terms, and the argument about the necessary formation of iron cyanides to make visible Prussian Blue stains isn't convincing.

The Markiewicz tests with their ultra-sensitive calibrations to exclude iron aren't an essential part of my rejection of Leuchter and Rudolf. They did show entirely negative results from buildings known to have been fumigated once, while their tests showed cyanide in delousing chambers and the crematoria, just as Leuchter and Rudolf's tests did. Perhaps the more important parts of their study were the experiments on exposing building materials to cyanide and observing a substantial decrease in cyanide content after a month when simply aired, noting the importance of CO2 to this reduction, and the effects of flushing samples with water, which also considerably reduced cyanide content from a recent exposure.

All of which is useful if one wanted to waste time on yet another round of discussing the mechanics of gassings, which I do not, but it is ultimately entirely pointless. The line of argument doesn't explain or refute the historical evidence whatsoever; this isn't a gunshot residue test which might rule out someone having fired a gun, much less one that works after 40+ years.

The logic also is lacking because of the switching between disciplines and approaches. At best the Leuchter-Rudolf argument might be considered another way of zapping many of the deportees from the historical record, which they demonstrably left on arriving at Auschwitz and never showing up anywhere else ever again. The ideal situation would have been for the argument to have inspired other revisionists to examine historical evidence to prove the revisionist case historically, but after 35+ years, this hasn't happened in a convincing way, either.

[SanityCheck]

There is no corroborating evidence of anyone being unloaded at labour camps en route.

Just because there’s no surviving documentation doesn’t mean people weren’t unloaded. Records from many intermediate camps are incomplete or lost. We know from places like Skaz Kammiena that thousands of people were regularly taken off trains for labor or processing, so it’s reasonable to conclude that similar disembarkations occurred at other stops. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Then off you go to confirm your hypothesis. You do however need *some* evidence, whether from witnesses, contemporary underground reports or German documents, before the unloading-at-ZALfJ argument is to be taken seriously. Otherwise it becomes another James Bacque 'other losses' or Naomi Wolf 'death recorded' example of misinterpreting documentation.

Selections for Skarzysko-Kamienna were generally conducted at the departure end, many before the general deportations, sometimes holding back labourers for separate transfer there. In 1942 these largely concerned the ghettos of Distrikt Radom, so this also leaves a gaping hole for Distrikt Warschau (city and province), Distrikt Lublin and Bezirk Bialystok.

[SanityCheck]

Your networks merely bloat the required conspiracy without resolving AR physical impossibilities -- address these specifics directly, or concede the physical evidence debate lost.

As with Leuchter-Rudolf's arguments, revisionist claims about mass graves and cremation at the larger AR camps (Belzec and Treblinka especially) are fundamentally unconvincing for failing to explain what happened historically. This point was reiterated over and over by Roberto Muehlenkamp, in addition to numerous points criticising the exaggerated assumptions about fuel requirements and trick arguments about grave capacity, among other rebuttals.

The points Roberto made also depended on inputting more historical information, for example the composition of the transports especially to Belzec, which especially from Eastern Galicia deported the unfit and non-labouring Jews first and thus had a skewed profile, with children overrepresented, while adults were held back in greater proportions. This much flows fairly obviously from comparing the estimate of 250,000 deported westwards to Belzec from Distrikt Galizien with the 161,000 recorded as still alive at the end of 1942.

The point noted about escapes from the transports was already discussed in Arad 1987, pp.249-257, Chapter 31, Escapes from the Trains and Spontaneous Acts of Resistance, with about half of this devoted to acknowledging the phenomenon (pp.249-253, about eight of the 17 endnotes). Arad did not include all examples already known and discussed in the literature when he was writing, for example Shmuel Krakowski in The War of the Doomed in 1985 noted on p.125 a case of a Jewish partisan group formed from escapees from a transport from Szydlowiec to Treblinka, which began with 39 members and lost 16 before liberation.

In the almost forty years since Arad's book was published we have much more research, much which also postdates the last exchanges between Roberto Muehlenkamp and Carlo Mattogno, so neither could take this into consideration fully. The study by Franziska Bruder, Das eigene Schicksal selbst bestimmen: Fluchten von Juden aus den Deportationszügen in die Vernichtungslager der »Aktion Reinhardt« in Polen (Berlin: Unrast: 2018) was ignored by Mattogno in his latest iteration from 2021, along with many other recent studies of the AR camps or which intersect with them.

At the other end of the trajectory, Roberto Muehlenkamp was pointing out repeatedly that the presence of unburned bones and remains found in 1945 as well as the discovery of corpse layers in wax-fat transformation by the Kola team at Belzec in 10 out of 33 mass graves meant that a significant but unquantifiable proportion of the corpses were never exhumed to be cremated. This point was readily absorbed by historians of Belzec like Robert Kuwalek as well as of the three AR camps like Sara Berger, who both cited this from Kola in their studies, way back in 2011 and 2013 respectively.

These two factors make it much harder to estimate how many corpses were exhumed to be cremated, and also the fuel requirements for doing so. Mattogno seems to proceed on the assumption of total incineration and raises fuel requirements accordingly, whereas the average would be lower if we factor in the unexhumed corpses and the evidence of incomplete cremation, a point that has already been made several times by Roberto Muehlenkamp.

Whether all graves have been located is also far from as clear-cut as some would like to pretend. This has been noted for Belzec by various commentators, and clearly applies to Treblinka due to the interference of the memorials in the upper camp grave area, while the lower camp mass graves were not identified in 1945 despite the chorus of sources noting that deaths in transit and the killings in the breakdown at Treblinka in August 1942 were buried in the lower camp. Caroline Sturdy Colls has noted this, so between her and the Polish archaeologists and geodesists one would hope for more on this in due course when their respective publications are released, at least to detect surface areas via GPR.

There are many studies of the AR camps by archaeologists as well as historians and sociologists exploring the postwar condition of the sites and memorials which have yet to be factored into the "debate". This applies especially to Sobibor and Treblinka. So as these haven't been addressed by a revisionist, the revisionists have 'lost' for now.


To reiterate, conjuring up assumptions about how much fuel was required to incinerate x amount of corpses then not finding historical records of their delivery when the camp records are known to have been destroyed is a truly remarkable piece of illogical and specious reasoning. I've still yet to see a rigorous demonstration that only y% of the deported could have been cremated much less an explanation of what happened to the z% who then supposedly were not. But for the argument to close the circle properly, the z% is absolutely necessary - this isn't humouring you guys with 'so where did they go', it's pointing out that you've still zapped all the deportees from 222 communities who eventually were moved to places from where there were deportations to Treblinka from the historical record. You might as well propose the z% not cremated were abducted to Neuschwabenland by Ernst Zuendel's Nazi UFOs ffs.

[Nazgul]

Then off you go to confirm your hypothesis. You do however need *some* evidence, whether from witnesses, contemporary underground reports or German documents, before the unloading-at-ZALfJ argument is to be taken seriously. Otherwise it becomes another James Bacque 'other losses' or Naomi Wolf 'death recorded' example of misinterpreting documentation.

Selections for Skarzysko-Kamienna were generally conducted at the departure end, many before the general deportations, sometimes holding back labourers for separate transfer there. In 1942 these largely concerned the ghettos of Distrikt Radom, so this also leaves a gaping hole for Distrikt Warschau (city and province), Distrikt Lublin and Bezirk Bialystok.

FPLO 587 shows a clear and consistent pattern: every extended halt occurs either at a Jewish labour camp or at a major rail junction serving multiple camps, with no long stops at other towns. This demonstrates that Treblinka-bound transports were structurally integrated into the forced-labour rail network, rather than moving uninterrupted from origin to destination. While Hilberg synthesizes multiple sources to describe all deportees arriving at Treblinka, the schedule itself documents routing and timing only; it does not confirm whether everyone remained on board until the final destination. These extended stops highlight the limits of what the administrative record alone can tell us, and suggest that the system’s operational details warrant further careful study.

[SanityCheck]

Then off you go to confirm your hypothesis. You do however need *some* evidence, whether from witnesses, contemporary underground reports or German documents, before the unloading-at-ZALfJ argument is to be taken seriously. Otherwise it becomes another James Bacque 'other losses' or Naomi Wolf 'death recorded' example of misinterpreting documentation.

Selections for Skarzysko-Kamienna were generally conducted at the departure end, many before the general deportations, sometimes holding back labourers for separate transfer there. In 1942 these largely concerned the ghettos of Distrikt Radom, so this also leaves a gaping hole for Distrikt Warschau (city and province), Distrikt Lublin and Bezirk Bialystok.

FPLO 587 shows a clear and consistent pattern: every extended halt occurs either at a Jewish labour camp or at a major rail junction serving multiple camps, with no long stops at other towns. This demonstrates that Treblinka-bound transports were structurally integrated into the forced-labour rail network, rather than moving uninterrupted from origin to destination. While Hilberg synthesizes multiple sources to describe all deportees arriving at Treblinka, the schedule itself documents routing and timing only; it does not confirm whether everyone remained on board until the final destination. These extended stops highlight the limits of what the administrative record alone can tell us, and suggest that the system’s operational details warrant further careful study.

You're still not getting it. The Fahrplananordnungen require other sources to corroborate the interpretation that deportees were unloaded alive at the stops. Mere possibility is the fallacy of possible proof, and as noted, something that others have fallen for with other documents when trying to interpret them on their own.

[Nazgul]

The Fahrplananordnungen require other sources to corroborate the interpretation that deportees were unloaded alive at the stops. Mere possibility is the fallacy of possible proof, and as noted, something that others have fallen for with other documents when trying to interpret them on their own.

Raul Hilberg’s narrative suggests that Jews deported from ghettos across the General Government, including Warsaw, were sent directly to extermination camps such as Treblinka. While this is partly true early in the war, surviving documents and firsthand accounts indicate a far more complex system, particularly after 1942.

The Fahrplananordnungen (FPLO train schedules) reveal that trains rarely traveled in a straight line to a single extermination camp. Instead, these schedules show multiple organized stops at labor camps — for example, Skarżysko-Kamienna, Dorohucza, Lublin-Flugplatz, Radom, and Trawniki — where prisoners were unloaded and assigned to work. Even brief technical stops aside, the substantive stops consistently align with camps where forced labor was performed.

Survivor testimony corroborates this pattern. Elie Cohen describes transport from Majdanek to Skarżysko-Kamienna with labor assignments. Judith Eliazar and Bertha Ensel recount deportation from Westerbork to Sobibor, then onward to Majdanek, Milejow, and Trawniki. Cato Polak details movement from Westerbork to Sobibor, Lublin-Flugplatz, and additional labor camps, emphasizing unloading and work assignments at each stop. These accounts demonstrate that trains were moving prisoners through a network of labor camps, not solely to extermination sites.

By the end of 1942, most extermination camps in the General Government had ceased operations, with Birkenau (Auschwitz II) being the notable exception. In contrast, labor camps remained active until the war’s end, and as the Red Army advanced, many were relocated westward into Germany. Prisoners endured forced marches, train transfers, and continued labor in these camps, illustrating that the deportation system was dynamic and multifaceted, rather than a series of direct transfers to death.

Taken together, the FPLO schedules, survivor testimonies, and the persistence of labor camps reveal a consistent pattern: trains moved prisoners between multiple labor camps, often over hundreds of kilometers, and only some were eventually sent to extermination sites. Hilberg’s claim of “direct transfer” oversimplifies this system, overlooking the crucial role that intermediate labor camps played in prisoner survival and the logistical reality of the Nazi deportation network.