The CODOH Revisionist Forum

Buchenwald Shrunken Heads and Human-Skin Objects Revisited
https://codoh.com/library/document/buch ... revisited/

Rudolf makes some important concessions here. To summarize, he accepts that recent analyses have found some of these artifacts to have human body derived origins, whereas in the past revisionists have argued that these were all or mostly fakes or of animal derived origins, that on the basis of older analyses.

This will have some obvious impacts on the discourse going forward. Very curious to know anyone's thoughts on these developments.

Here is prosecutor Dodd giving the oath at Nuremburg Trials

All the recent analyses are the work of forensic biologist Mark Benecke, and they involve visual inspection, microscopic examination, and DNA testing. I was going to quote Rudolf's summary here, but instead I will give my own summary with more detail. These are all the artifacts of concern, with links to timestamps from his presentation on Youtube and additional links to the Buchenwald Memorial website:

1. The segmented lampshade, which is seen on Koch's desk in a photo from his photo album, was made of "raw" and "flattened" human skin. 15:15. Memorial.
2. The Buchenwald Museum's shrunken head was actually made of goat skin and hair. 06:34.
3. The Buchenwald Museum's heart in a jar with a bullet wound is human, although no DNA was found. 12:56. Memorial.
4. The Buchenwald Museum's miniature lampshade, which in 1992 was determined not to be made of human skin, actually was made of human skin. 10:28. Memorial.
5. The New Orleans lampshade, previously identified as being made of Jewish skin, was made of calf hide. 09:11.
6. A fourth lampshade sent in by a journalist was made of human skin. 16:25.
7. A pocketknife case from a British museum which is said to have come from Germany in 1945 was made of human skin. 13:59. Memorial.
8. The two shrunken heads from the Buchenwald atrocity table, one of which was presented at the IMT, have not been tested.
9. The many skin samples and other artifacts from that table are not discussed in the video, but three samples are mentioned on the Buchenwald website here.

Separate from this, there is also the story of a donated photo album that the Auschwitz Museum believes was made of human skin at Buchenwald. They posted this article in 2020. The method there was spectrophotometry.

There is also this study of four additional shrunken heads that some believed had origins at Buchenwald. Using DNA evidence, the author concludes that one has Southeastern European ancestry and the other three are Amerindian. [EDIT: The study mentions Buchenwald but does not say that Buchenwald was the believed origin for these heads.]

I also want to point out that the lampshade Benecke tested and photographed, item 4 in the list above, appears visually different than the one in this older photo. The slope of the lampshade appears steeper, and the material more resembles leather. For that matter the shrunken head looks different too, in one photo, but maybe that's a recreation? I trust I am simply wrong about this, but the visual difference is too striking to let go unremarked upon.

As always, the exterminationist camp hopes the world will have total disregard for all questions of chain of custody, as it remains the case there is zero evidence these objects (if truly authentic and retrieved from Germany) were even derived from camp inmates -- let alone Jews. As Rudolf demonstrates, the propaganda history insofar as the presentation of these items coupled with the inconsistent forensic findings/data all point to the same pattern of fabrication and misrepresentation we see over and over again with all-things-'Holocaust'. Only by total blindness to the source(s) and custodial handoffs of these items -- and with absolute trust in those affirming things like 'gassing' and 'German barbarism' -- can one take these tokens of the narrative seriously.

It seems he hedges somewhat with "Assuming that Dr. Benecke’s findings are correct..." He also mentions provenance and other concerns.

I remain rather skeptical primarily because 1) the sensational nature of the original charges, 2) the fact that by the time of the Koch trial in 1948 the Americans themselves do not even seem to have believed it. At the same time though, I don't know that I see a major incentive for them to risk faking a bunch of tests at this late a date (better to leave it alone, I would think).

Prior thread
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=181

Fred Ziffel wrote: ↑Mon Aug 04, 2025 10:24 pm Here is prosecutor Dodd giving the oath at Nuremburg Trials

You jest, but besides posing for those dramatic photos, he also did present it as evidence, as videotaped here. Dodd parroted the story given by OSS agent Jack Donovan, who put it in his affidavit (3421-PS) that the shrunken heads belonged to "two young Poles who had been hanged for having had relations with German girls."

This treatment, with zero regard for evidentiary standards, betrays an intention to incline the judges and the public against the Germans.

Callafangers wrote: ↑Mon Aug 04, 2025 11:54 pm As always, the exterminationist camp hopes the world will have total disregard for all questions of chain of custody, as it remains the case there is zero evidence these objects (if truly authentic and retrieved from Germany) were even derived from camp inmates -- let alone Jews. As Rudolf demonstrates, the propaganda history insofar as the presentation of these items coupled with the inconsistent forensic findings/data all point to the same pattern of fabrication and misrepresentation we see over and over again with all-things-'Holocaust'. Only by total blindness to the source(s) and custodial handoffs of these items -- and with absolute trust in those affirming things like 'gassing' and 'German barbarism' -- can one take these tokens of the narrative seriously.

Yes, it seems only the segmented lampshade is known to predate the Allied occupation, and only because there is a photograph of it. I'm willing to forgive some chain of custody issues on that one. Not on all the others.

Archie wrote: ↑Tue Aug 05, 2025 6:32 am It seems he hedges somewhat with "Assuming that Dr. Benecke’s findings are correct..." He also mentions provenance and other concerns.

Yes, that's wise. I don't think anyone on this forum is up to the task of contesting DNA evidence, but I will say a few words. Benecke says that the shrunken head he tested (item #2) was a 99.7% match to goat DNA. He says other items (#4, 7, and 1?) are a 99% match to Homo sapiens. These are the only numbers he gives. It could be argued that 99% is not actually a very close match, since humans and chimps are said to share as much as 99% of DNA, with other animals also in the 90 percentile. (The exact percentages are a matter of technical dispute.) I don't think these artifacts were made of chimpanzee skin, but there is at least some space to doubt the claim that they were made of human skin.

Benecke also says he used PCR and BLAST. Both are known to return false positives in cases where DNA material is thin, which it is said to be in this case. Benecke also jokes about contamination, something that could generate false positives.

I'm sure Benecke and the labs are well aware of all these limitations. One way they can avoid anyone disputing their results is to treat all samples equally. If Benecke had all of these artifacts equally tested for goat DNA (or some other animal DNA), with the same testing parameters and all, then his findings should be definitive.

Archie wrote: ↑Tue Aug 05, 2025 6:32 am I remain rather skeptical primarily because 1) the sensational nature of the original charges, 2) the fact that by the time of the Koch trial in 1948 the Americans themselves do not even seem to have believed it. At the same time though, I don't know that I see a major incentive for them to risk faking a bunch of tests at this late a date (better to leave it alone, I would think).

Agreed. I don't think they would intentionally try to fake test results. However, the social incentives are huge to publish positive results and non-existent or negative to publish negative results.

Wetzelrad wrote: ↑Tue Aug 05, 2025 9:14 pm

Callafangers wrote: ↑Mon Aug 04, 2025 11:54 pm As always, the exterminationist camp hopes the world will have total disregard for all questions of chain of custody, as it remains the case there is zero evidence these objects (if truly authentic and retrieved from Germany) were even derived from camp inmates -- let alone Jews. As Rudolf demonstrates, the propaganda history insofar as the presentation of these items coupled with the inconsistent forensic findings/data all point to the same pattern of fabrication and misrepresentation we see over and over again with all-things-'Holocaust'. Only by total blindness to the source(s) and custodial handoffs of these items -- and with absolute trust in those affirming things like 'gassing' and 'German barbarism' -- can one take these tokens of the narrative seriously.

Yes, it seems only the segmented lampshade is known to predate the Allied occupation, and only because there is a photograph of it. I'm willing to forgive some chain of custody issues on that one. Not on all the others.

I see your point, let's examine the story behind the lamp a bit more closely:

“On 21 April 1945, a British parliamentary delegation visited Buchenwald Concentration Camp to see the conditions in the liberated camp for themselves. Two of the MPs took objects from the pathology department home with them to present to the British public.

Colonel William E. Williams, head of the 120th Evacuation Hospital, who was on medical duty with his unit in Buchenwald at the time, gave a member of parliament a piece from the upper section of the shade of the desk lamp that had already been displayed on the table with pathological specimens on 16 April. The same lampshade can be recognised in a photo album, which the first camp commandant Karl Otto Koch had made in 1943, on his desk in the camp commandant’s office.

The lampshade, which was also intended as evidence, was literally plundered within days. In a photo from 24 April 1945, only the frame of the lampshade remains.

The piece of the lampshade was later found in the parliamentarian’s family estate. In the course of Dr. Myfanwy Lloyd’s research, the family expressed the wish to hand over the object to the Buchenwald Memorial. The handover took place on 11 April 2023.

An expert report on the property was commissioned by the Buchenwald Memorial on 19 February 2024.

In summary, we have a lampshade:

• Allegedly discovered in April 1945 by Allied visitors
• Among these visitors, a British MP ended up with what is claimed to be the only surviving piece of an alleged human skin lamp from the wartime photograph, which of course surfaced only post-war
• The only evidence this photo is connected to SS officials is that the photo was said to have been contained within Karl-Otto Koch's 1943 photo album (very convenient)
• Neither Koch nor anyone else from 1943 is seen in this photo... it's just a room, with a lamp
• Other than this single piece of the lamp allegedly kept by the British MP, the entire remainder of the lamp's 'human skin' was stolen and vanished just days after it was first 'discovered'
• After 80 years, a material allegedly derived from the 1945 lamp is handed over to the Buchenwald museum.

This of course should not be viewed in isolation from the other items which were distributed or received in those same couple of weeks at liberation:

During his visit to the pathology department in April 1945, a British parliamentarian received two artefacts from its deputy prisoner chaplain, Dr. Kurt Sitte (1910-1993). These were a penknife case made from human skin and a small piece of human skin cut from the edge of a piece of tattooed skin.

Thus, we have the "deputy prisoner chaplain" of Buchenwald's pathology department being the source of at least two of the major 'human skin objects' from Buchenwald... but who is this Kurt Sitte?

It was primarily because of his political activism that he was detained at the Buchenwald concentration camp between September 1939 and April 1944.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Sitte

Ah, there it is! Clear as day -- he was a prisoner who worked in the pathology lab. But wait, there's more... He is also a hardened communist:

In the age of McCarthyism, Sitte was the object of official suspicion during his years in the United States, both because of his left-wing politics in the 1930s and because of the contacts he maintained with Czechoslovak communists whom he knew from his time in Buchenwald, and whom he continued to visit even after the Communist take-over in 1948. It was at the instigation of the FBI that in 1953 Sitte's residence permit was not renewed, and he accordingly relocated again, this time to Brazil.

His wife during (and after) the war was Jewish (born Judith Krymokowski), which further complicated his stay at Buchenwald, where she was also an inmate. I wonder how he felt, as a communist with a Jewish wife, being imprisoned at Buchenwald at the hands of 'Nazis' he hated? Surely, it would be far beneath him to misrepresent or fabricate 'skin-artifact' narratives... right?

All we know is that a hardened communist with a Jewish wife is the primary source for all of these key artifacts from the Buchenwald pathology department.

Lastly, I agree with Rudolf's concern here:

[Benecke] may just have submitted his results to the Museum, who probably paid for it and control now what will happen with it.

It seems quite clear the Buchenwald Museum has every intention of preventing revisionists from challenging Benecke's conclusions:

According to the Buchenwald and Mittelbau-Dora Memorial Foundation, it was a special practice of the SS in Buchenwald to exchange items made of human skin as gifts. The preferred materials for this purpose were tattooed pieces of skin cut from the corpses of prisoners and processed into everyday objects or used as display pieces. The memorial commissioned new expert reports after historical revisionist circles repeatedly questioned the crimes committed by the SS and the authenticity of the preserved human remains.

Translated: https://home.benecke.com/publications/b ... buchenwald

But perhaps the question is not so much about whether someone managed to produce human skin objects but, rather, whether we can say any of these necessarily belonged to SS officials like Karl-Otto Koch, Hermann Pister, or to Ilse Koch, when a motivated anti-German pathologist Kurt Sitte had carte blanche to claim German atrocities and would have been just as capable of sourcing corpse materials.

Interesting article, the newly re-visited topic and mentioning of the new research done by M.Benecke has been on the HolocaustControversies bloggers website since at least November last year, but of course as sadly usual in their case characterized by astonishing superficiality.
Good to see Germar and others are taking it up now.

What on the outset has baffled me more than anything else is the Greater picture, exemplifying the overall fascinating phenomenon of "Holocaust"-publicity:

Purely factually when taking ALL the alleged grisly items of human material found at Buchenwald and other places and for the sake of argument setting aside ALL unverified aspects and accept that these are genuine as claimed, this amounts to approximately : 2 shrunken heads, 2-3 lampshades, a pen-knife case and maybe a dozen examples of tattoed skin

= if we are generous, the total end result/catch can be summarized as a few dozen specimen of bodyparts found in Germany "harvested" under unknown (potentially criminal) circumstances.

On the other side purely factually:
The amount of fully verified and documented cases/items of mutilated bodyparts "harvested" by American troops in Japan/Pacific theater alone (leaving aside the apparently similar practices by The Red Army in the East, British/Australian troops etc):

Hundreds to thousands of mutilated bodyparts criminally taken/gifted:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_ ... e_war_dead
(As described in detail also by John W.Dower in "War Without Mercy" 1986)

By Unknown photographer - Australian War Memorial, Canberra Act 2601, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.p ... d=10210773

So, purely quantitatively at least ten to hundred times more items were actually found on the side of the Allies.
Yet the amount of publicity curiously and counterintuitively is exactly the inverse of that ratio. According to (buyers beware..) the AI Google summary fascinatingly there does not exist a single one memorial/museum "dedicated to "American Japanese Mutilation", not one forensic research done 50/80 years later, not one curriculum/organization of "remembrance/education"...?

Summarizing the overview: the great irony is that even IF ALL these German-made artifacts turn out to be of genuinely criminal origin committed by German personnel, this would make them at the very best/worst no more/less criminal/brutal as American/Allied personnel, yet it is the latter countries that somehow feel the right to endlessly point the finger...?

With that as background, regarding the details of the new research:

Interesting in my opinion:

1- Both the lampshade and bullet-Heart appear to have been provided by German Communist Political Prisoner Karl Straub post-war who claimed to have "taken them" after the liberation in 1945:

https://www.buchenwald.de/en/geschichte ... mpenschirm

- This is not proof of him forging them, but justifiably one could perhaps state that he might not be considered an ideal reliable source for scientific objectivity...?

2- In 1992 after the fall of Soviet East Germany in 1992 an independant investigation on the lamp by the Institute of Forensic Medicine at the Erfurt Medical Academy was conducted, stating as result:

"Specimen IV (lampshade), however, cannot be serologically identified as human. It is possible that it is a synthetic material that was produced for lampshades at a similar time. Ultimately, however, it cannot be completely ruled out that it is nevertheless biological (i.e. animal)material." (mentioned in above link)

- Has anyone looked deeper into how exactly they came to this conclusion and what the exact methods/peer-review procedure was?

3- Regarding the main researcher, Mark Benecke:

a) as Germar and others have mentioned, sadly so far no independant peer-review/ cross-checking of his exact methods/interpretations seems to have been done at all, nor has he published/revealed any of his detailed procedures/methods to make this possible.

On the contrary he sadly appears to employ either in-or deliberate imprecision in his publications/interviews, at worst throwing out cloudcastle opinions like him seeing "patterns in the microscopic structure", at best large terminology like "PCR" "BLAST" "99%" apparently either thinking or hoping that the audience will not be intelligent enough to get the nuances/details behind those..:

https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/panorama ... d-100.html

Which sadly seems to be part of his created/hyped media-persona/image of tattoed renegade sensation go-to "rockstar-scientist" with punk-rock background:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Benecke

Everyone may of course present him/herself and opine what he/she wishes and what they do privately in their spare-time is noone else`s business, but what is a bit concerning regarding the reliability of his scientific objectivity when it comes to controversial research into items of NS-Germany origin as the above mentioned artifacts is :

b) his longtime extreme left political background/views:

Besides being a Vegan-and Animal Rights activist, he is the chairman of the North Rhine Westphalia "Die Partei"-party, which not only declares as their founding principle to "get votes before some Neo-Nazis do", but also recently during an election ran an advertising campaign fastening bilboards to lampposts reading "Here a NAZI could be hanged":

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Benecke#Politik
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_PARTEI

Again, this is of course not proof that his results are biased/incorrect, but in all fairness, perhaps justifies exact scrutiny as to his methods/interpretations and if he has left his personal political views out of his work and adhers to true scientific
objectivity?

Sorry, forgot to exemplify the last point, regarding forensic biologist Mark Benecke and potential evidence that he might at times have difficulties keeping his political views out of his work and at least thus deserve fair scrutiny as to his objectivity:

In 2019 he lobbied publicly for the total abolishment of all terminology regarding human races, referring explicitly to his "Decade-long background in Zoology " and status as professional "Forensic biologist" to declare:

"I support the sept 2019 recommendation to law-makers to erase the term human races forever.
Biologically seen there are no human races, the term is factually meaningless.
We are all just humans.
Alleged racial differences are genetically non-existent."

https://home.benecke.com/publications/a ... -der-rasse

Hmmmmm...

Good input, gents. New Wiki just dropped:

https://wiki.codohforum.com/pages/index ... in_Objects

Archie wrote: ↑Tue Aug 05, 2025 6:32 amI remain rather skeptical primarily because 1) the sensational nature of the original charges, 2) the fact that by the time of the Koch trial in 1948 the Americans themselves do not even seem to have believed it. At the same time though, I don't know that I see a major incentive for them to risk faking a bunch of tests at this late a date (better to leave it alone, I would think).

Another reason to remain skeptical is the fact that much of this 'new research' only serves the purpose of muddying the waters; we've seen orthodox historians concede that much of the most over-the-top Nazi atrocity propaganda was fake, but to the Holocaust industry, there always needs to be a caveat to these concessions. Yes, the soap story was fake, except this one supposed study (that no one's ever seen) confirming some random soap from a school in Danzig contained human fat. Yes, the lampshades were fake, except this one lampshade that was actually made from human skin. Yes, the shrunken heads were fake, except this one shrunken head "of Eastern European ancestry".

What's most striking, to me, about all this is the fact that revisionists were correct on the shrunken heads. For decades, revisionists were saying the Buchenwald shrunken heads looked like typical Amerindian artifacts, where the practice was widespread. As Wetzelrad points out, three shrunken heads were confirmed to be Amerindian.

Callafangers wrote: ↑Wed Aug 06, 2025 10:14 am All we know is that a hardened communist with a Jewish wife is the primary source for all of these key artifacts from the Buchenwald pathology department.

Thanks. I'd like to work on this in more depth, but for the moment I must point out that this statement is wrong if taken to include the lampshades. Looking at Justice at Dachau by Joshua Greene, p.264, Sitte took credit for the knife case (#7) and for a shrunken head (#8). (Rudolf says he took credit for the knife case and skin samples.) Everything else he talked about was hearsay. An exact quote: "I myself did not see a lampshade." So, as Leif points out, we may need to give consideration to other witnesses like Straub.

Leif F. wrote: ↑Wed Aug 06, 2025 6:26 pm What on the outset has baffled me more than anything else is the Greater picture, exemplifying the overall fascinating phenomenon of "Holocaust"-publicity:

Purely factually when taking ALL the alleged grisly items of human material found at Buchenwald and other places and for the sake of argument setting aside ALL unverified aspects and accept that these are genuine as claimed, this amounts to approximately : 2 shrunken heads, 2-3 lampshades, a pen-knife case and maybe a dozen examples of tattoed skin

= if we are generous, the total end result/catch can be summarized as a few dozen specimen of bodyparts found in Germany "harvested" under unknown (potentially criminal) circumstances.

Yes. The big picture is why I think we should thoroughly list out every specimen or allegation thereof. The allegations in 1945 included skin "handbags, gloves, saddles, and slippers", as well as book covers, one of which was Ilse Koch's photo album cover said to be made from tattooed skin. Also Koch's lamp was said to be made from bone. All of these are missing from the current narrative. Once we can put all these claims up against the items now said to be real, we have a more serious perspective.

That said, your comparison to Allied trophies is very well put.

Leif F. wrote: ↑Wed Aug 06, 2025 7:02 pm Sorry, forgot to exemplify the last point, regarding forensic biologist Mark Benecke and potential evidence that he might at times have difficulties keeping his political views out of his work and at least thus deserve fair scrutiny as to his objectivity:

Interesting. I don't personally mind if working people decide to be so public about their political beliefs, yet it seems obvious that if some other forensics expert came out of the woodwork to dispute Benecke's conclusions, one who declared openly for example his exact opposite view -- that race is real and essential to who we are -- then this person's contributions to forensics would be automatically rejected.

Callafangers wrote: ↑Wed Aug 06, 2025 7:03 pm Good input, gents. New Wiki just dropped:

https://wiki.codohforum.com/pages/index ... in_Objects

Looks good.

I question including my own critique about DNA evidence since it is so speculative. I would much prefer to hear someone with expertise give their opinion on that, even if they are on the other side of the debate. Until then here is how I would rephrase it:

He reported some items as 99% DNA matches to humans, but DNA testing can produce false positives in degraded samples [9]. The possibility that his findings were false positives is supported by his admissions that "DNA quantity was low", that he was "probably the first one to ever wear a glove" in handling one item, and that he and his associates "were afraid that it was probably contaminated" [8].

[9] Bhoyar, L., Mehar, P. & Chavali, K. An overview of DNA degradation and its implications in forensic caseworks. Egypt J Forensic Sci 14, 15 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41935-024-00389-y . "Degraded DNA samples are highly susceptible to contamination from external sources, such as modern human DNA, microbial DNA, or contaminants introduced during handling. This can lead to erroneous outcomes and compromised interpretations."

Wetzelrad wrote: ↑Mon Aug 04, 2025 10:34 pm [*] The New Orleans lampshade, previously identified as being made of Jewish skin, was made of calf hide. 09:11.

That's what all of this garbage reminds me of.
They made a documentary in which the "New Orleans lampshade" was lab tested by scientists using the latest techniques, 'confirming" it was made of human skin.
Then just a few years later retracted the claim saying that more advanced techniques proved that it's not human skin.

The story sounded completely fictional from minute one, so does this.
It's just more desperate storytelling for lack of any physical evidence of a holocaust.

Wetzelrad wrote: ↑Wed Aug 06, 2025 9:45 pm

Callafangers wrote: ↑Wed Aug 06, 2025 10:14 am All we know is that a hardened communist with a Jewish wife is the primary source for all of these key artifacts from the Buchenwald pathology department.

Thanks. I'd like to work on this in more depth, but for the moment I must point out that this statement is wrong if taken to include the lampshades. Looking at Justice at Dachau by Joshua Greene, p.264, Sitte took credit for the knife case (#7) and for a shrunken head (#8). (Rudolf says he took credit for the knife case and skin samples.) Everything else he talked about was hearsay. An exact quote: "I myself did not see a lampshade." So, as Leif points out, we may need to give consideration to other witnesses like Straub.

I think the broader point is that a communist prisoner with a Jewish wife worked within the very pathology department that is at the core of the controversy. He personally produced at least two of the major items at the center of all of this. There is nothing to say he could not have obtained, constructed, or planted other such artifacts as 'evidence' in the time before or after Allied arrival. The camp was abandoned by the Germans/SS well-before the Allies even arrived:

As American forces closed in, Gestapo headquarters at Weimar telephoned the camp administration to announce that it was sending explosives to blow up any evidence of the camp, including its inmates. The Gestapo did not know that the administrators had already fled.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buchenwal ... ation_camp

curioussoul wrote: ↑Wed Aug 06, 2025 8:25 pm What's most striking, to me, about all this is the fact that revisionists were correct on the shrunken heads. For decades, revisionists were saying the Buchenwald shrunken heads looked like typical Amerindian artifacts, where the practice was widespread. As Wetzelrad points out, three shrunken heads were confirmed to be Amerindian.

Yes, I wonder if that study has slipped by unnoticed until now. I only read it briefly but it seems important.

I will add some caveats, however. The study does not say that the four shrunken heads were believed to be from Buchenwald. They came from two Polish museums, one for ethnography and the other for forensic medicine. Clearly the reason they had to be tested is because their provenance was uncertain, but I don't have any source that says they were from Buchenwald. Buchenwald is mentioned separately in the study. Therefore it's a mistake on my part, or speculation. Probably today the heads are displayed with correct explanations of their origins.

The study also neglects to explain the ancestral origin of head no.2, as far as I can see, but I take it to be Amerindian from context clues.

Callafangers wrote: ↑Wed Aug 06, 2025 10:28 pm I think the broader point is that a communist prisoner with a Jewish wife worked within the very pathology department that is at the core of the controversy. He personally produced at least two of the major items at the center of all of this. There is nothing to say he could not have obtained, constructed, or planted other such artifacts as 'evidence' in the time before or after Allied arrival. The camp was abandoned by the Germans/SS well-before the Allies even arrived:

True, and I think we could also characterize him as working in collaboration with Jack Donovan. Sitte's claim was laundered through Donovan's affidavit.

What you say is broadly true about all of the camps and all of the evidence, but I like to see every claim pulled apart in finest detail when possible. I will go through the trial transcripts and Senate transcripts if I have time and if I can find them.