Why does SanityCheck evade the Physical Evidence Question?

[Stubble]

I've downloaded the entire set and have them on an external. My copy of Adobe tells me that it can't search them because they are image files.

Maybe update Acrobat? My copy is searching them fine.

Fresh install. The correct answer may be 'pay for acrobat'.

[SanityCheck]

Again: your archaeology department involvement is shocking -- you evade precision while claiming expertise. Tsk tsk.

Uh wut? My university merged my history department with the archaeology department. That means more contact with archaeologists.

I was familiar before this merger three years ago with archaeological studies and historical studies emphasising landscapes, physical evidence and investigating death and body disposal. I can synthesise a good deal of this - work by historians, discussing cremation in historical circumstances away from WWII Europe, among other things - as a historian. That's 'expertise' of a sort, but no different to my having read a lot of legal literature for obvious reasons. IANAL, as they say; IANAA, not claiming to be. But neither is anyone on your side.

Aktion 1005 is Soviet hearsay (no explicit/contemporary documents, improbable logistics, zero unearthed graves at scale at German sites), so no surprise you rely on it so heavily. Your "networks" of this kind bloat unproven claims.

No, it's not.
1. dozens of contemporary German documents referencing Sonderkommando 1005, in connection also with known cremation sites, also referencing escaped prisoners smelling distinctly of corpse. No explanation for what 1005 was provided by Mattogno or any other revisionist.
2. dozens of contemporary Polish and Soviet underground and partisan reports, as well as fugitive accounts before liberation of escapees from 1005 detachments, noting the pattern of cremation sites
3. 'zero unearthed graves at scale at German sites' - flatly false, the Soviet and Polish war crimes commissions identified grave sites which had been exhumed and remains cremated, in contrast to identifying other grave sites which had not been targeted by 1005 and which contained corpses.
4. the sites in question are for the USSR very well documented in German records for the killings in 1941-42. Many of these sites also have population registration reports or registers immediately prior to killing actions, doubling up the sources (e.g. Bobruisk, Brest-Litovsk, Pinsk, Riga and others). Some of these actions were also noted by the Polish underground, which further refutes the 'Soviet hearsay' bullshit.
5. the sites in Poland include places of execution of non-Jews as well as Jews; documentation from the Germans is more variable, but for Erntefest includes some hard-to-explain documents noting the withdrawal of workforces who don't show up elsewhere, and the Polish underground provides detailed reportage of the killings and then reported on the exhumations and cremations, which could also be noted by other observers (diarists).
6. postwar investigations and interrogations identified the 1005 operation fairly quickly in the 1940s, later 1960s investigations harvested extensive accounts of service in 1005 units. Perimeter guards had little reason to deny this when they were not necessarily involved in killings (what would they be charged with?). Other Germans observed the cremations as well, knew about them, and together these accounts provide lots more detail on how cremations might be carried out, where fuel was sourced from, etc.

Considering the majority of mass graves in the occupied Soviet Union weren't targeted by 1005, especially in provincial areas away from the larger towns where the Germans began their quixotic attempt to cover up their crimes, there's already a problem with fussing over 1005. You might desire to deny all mass killings of Jews everywhere, but cannot point to either the camps or 1005 as a one neat trick for doing so, there were extensive mass graves left. So the goalposts move for you, and no doubt you can come up with excuses for why the other mass graves aren't acceptable evidence, even if this means insisting on a level of documentation that will be absent for equivalent mass killings in the modern era, before the rare exceptions like Srebrenica. But there are Srebrenica deniers, so the 'scientific' pose looks pretty threadbare when anything can be denied, if a partisan so chooses.

Then there's the problem for you of the documented prior presence of Jews in the towns, counties and regions targeted by deportations and mass shootings. The usual revisionist trick of claiming transfer or resettlement becomes even more ludicrous when we add in the documented Jews in the occupied Soviet territories. You might want to claim the Jews of Brest-Litovsk weren't killed in October 1942, that the documents we have about this action were faked, that all witnesses were lying, that the Polish underground made it up (but somehow despite the Polish-Soviet split communicated this to the Soviets), and maybe even that the claim of a 1005 cremation at Bronnaia Gora proves this. Which wouldn't solve the problem of explaining where the Jews of Brest-Litovsk, and indeed the 330,000 Jews of the Wolhynien region, were sent. Or the problem of showing with evidence that all the documents about the presence of Jews in the region, the local reports counting them in Brest, Pinsk, Rivne, Lutsk, and other towns in 1942, were faked, then arguing that all of the Jews in this region somehow were spirited away at some point - a claim requiring evidence.

Assignment:

You first, quantify where Jews were under German occupation in Eastern Europe for the end of 1942. That precedes systematic cremation at Treblinka, that's why you go first.

Stop evading historical reconstruction and historical explanation.

[SanityCheck]

I've downloaded the entire set and have them on an external. My copy of Adobe tells me that it can't search them because they are image files.

Maybe update Acrobat? My copy is searching them fine.

Fresh install. The correct answer may be 'pay for acrobat'.

It shouldn't be, my laptop was new in December and added a free version of Acrobat then.

[Stubble]

Maybe update Acrobat? My copy is searching them fine.

Fresh install. The correct answer may be 'pay for acrobat'.

It shouldn't be, my laptop was new in December and added a free version of Acrobat then.

I'll be damned, now working, ish. Thank you!

Update: after going through stuff again using search and trying to track it down, I am going to just retract. There are entirely too many rabbit trails in here and I can in no way stay focused on the prize Sir.

When I do finally run across it again, I will make a thread with a proper citation. I will also included the congressional testimony in the OP of that thread.

For now though, I retract.