Aerial photo Treblinka II

Discuss the alleged Nazi genocide or other wartime atrocities without fear of censorship. No bullying of fellow posters is allowed at RODOH. If you can't be civil, please address the argument and not the participants. Do not use disparaging alterations of the user-names of other RODOH posters or their family members. Failure to heed warnings from Moderators will result in a 24 hour ban (or longer if necessary).
Bunim Abend
Posts: 139
Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2019 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Aerial photo Treblinka II

Post by Bunim Abend » Thu Jun 13, 2019 6:31 am

Turnagain wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 5:53 am
IOW, you have no proof at all. Zip, zero, nada.

No cremains, no graves, no holyhoax. Finito. End of story.
Reverse those sentences around.

You have "no proof at all. Zip, zero, nada" of your unfounded claims that no cremains and no graves have been found.

You're a few sandwiches short of a picnic.

Turnagain
Posts: 5946
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 11:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Aerial photo Treblinka II

Post by Turnagain » Thu Jun 13, 2019 6:39 am

Nessie wrote:
Deniers discuss the witness, photographic and physical evidence of a large area of TII having been excavated and then announce there is no evidence of large scale ground disturbances consistent with graves, exhumations and a cover up.
No, we don't discuss a large area of T-2 being excavated. I have shown how such large excavations were impossible and that Wiernik was lying about seeing any 10X25X50 meter graves. That's a proven fact from his model of T-2. There is no proof of any 10X25X50 meter graves at T-2. Your tired lies don't fly, Nessie.

No cremains, no graves, no holyhoax. Finito. End of story.

Turnagain
Posts: 5946
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 11:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Aerial photo Treblinka II

Post by Turnagain » Thu Jun 13, 2019 6:41 am

Pretending that you don't understand my little tag line isn't going to fly, Abend.

No cremains, no graves, no holyhoax. Finito. End of story.

rollo the ganger
Posts: 6205
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 12:34 am
Contact:

Re: Aerial photo Treblinka II

Post by rollo the ganger » Thu Jun 13, 2019 7:10 am

In regards to the Wiernik's maps:
There are no significant differences in those 2 maps.
Except for the fact that the buildings south of the gas chambers in map #1 have in map #2 been offset to the east significantly and a lot of new buildings have appeared by the rail line.

Turnagain
Posts: 5946
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 11:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Aerial photo Treblinka II

Post by Turnagain » Thu Jun 13, 2019 7:43 am

rollo the ganger wrote:
Except for the fact that the buildings south of the gas chambers in map #1 have in map #2 been offset to the east significantly and a lot of new buildings have appeared by the rail line.
Just a (heh-heh) little mistake, rollo. Those holyhoax witnesses made lots of those (heh-heh) little mistakes. You're not supposed to pay any attention to them. Don't mean a thing.

rollo the ganger
Posts: 6205
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 12:34 am
Contact:

Re: Aerial photo Treblinka II

Post by rollo the ganger » Thu Jun 13, 2019 12:34 pm

Nessie wrote:You had not followed the evidence about the graves, exhumations and cover up. The cover up was photographed. That shows your hypothesis that Ukrainian dug out those rectangular outlines, then filled them back in and then dug over the disturbed area and planted it, is wrong. Many people and excavators were involved.
What you're really saying is I'm not believing all the rumors about that camp trying to be passed as "evidence". Regardless, the REAL evidence, DEFINITIVE evidence is available... now, today! All one has to do is have a professional, unbiased technician run a GPR device over the areas alleged to be graves. And to make doubly certain all that needs to be done is to do some digging there. That would more or less eliminate all doubt. What do you say Nessie? Should it be done?

rollo the ganger
Posts: 6205
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 12:34 am
Contact:

Re: Aerial photo Treblinka II

Post by rollo the ganger » Thu Jun 13, 2019 12:39 pm

Turnagain wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 7:43 am
rollo the ganger wrote:
Except for the fact that the buildings south of the gas chambers in map #1 have in map #2 been offset to the east significantly and a lot of new buildings have appeared by the rail line.
Just a (heh-heh) little mistake, rollo. Those holyhoax witnesses made lots of those (heh-heh) little mistakes. You're not supposed to pay any attention to them. Don't mean a thing.
I brought this up before but one would think that if someone spent a year in a place he would know the place by heart. Wiernik should have also known that, as his 1944 map shows, that the rail line going south from the camp didn't lead to Warsaw but to the quarry. And why it says the northern direction heads to Bialystok rather than Malkinia I have my suspicions.

User avatar
blake121666
Posts: 3112
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:26 am
Contact:

Re: Aerial photo Treblinka II

Post by blake121666 » Thu Jun 13, 2019 12:54 pm

Turnagain wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 4:31 am
blake121666 wrote:
700,000 whole cadavers would need something like 700,000 cadavers / 12 cadavers/m3 = 58,333 m3.
I question your assumption of 12 cadavers per m^3 of grave space. Except for the Katyn forest massacre I haven't been able to find anything but the usual wrangling on pro and anti holyhoax sites about grave size/number of cadavers and I've spent a considerable amount of time over the years trying to find something definitive. Granted, my computer skills are limited so my lack of success doesn't mean that such information doesn't exist.

That said, the Katyn site measured about 96X6X3.5 meters and ~4,100 bodies were recovered. If we assume that .5 meters was the covering for the cadavers that leaves 1,728 m^3 of burial space for bodies. Since there were ~4,100 cadavers recovered that gives 2.4 (2.37) cadavers per m^3 of grave. If we double that and throw in one extra body for good measure, the maximum number of cadavers that can be buried in one cubic meter is about six (6). For ~700,000 bodies we then need ~117,000 m^3 of usable grave space. Mattogno claims eight (8) bodies can fit in 1 m^3 but I can't see how he arrived at that number other than by a VERY generous estimate.

If you have more definitive information about the number of bodies per cubic meter of grave, please post it (even if you've posted it before).
Katyn is the worst example to apply to T2. Katyn had very shallow and spread-out graves. The model for T2 would be very large and deep graves with corpses thrown into them. We've been over this question of packing density of cadavers many times. It's a very complicated question. One thing I use as a guide is Charles Provan's experiment with packing live bodies into a box.

If you go to the end of that page at that link you see that Provan put 3 adults, 4 children, and one baby doll into a box of dimensions 21" x 21" x 60.5". He has a link to pictures of this at the very bottom. You can see that the adults' heads extend past the top of the box. If one were to consider this as Provan saying that he got 8 persons into a box of (21" x 21" x 60.5" = 26,2680.5 cu-in = 15.44 cu-ft =.44 m3), then he achieved a density of about 8 persons per 1/2 m3 (use 1/2 and not .44 since the adults went above his 60.5" dimension and for ease of calculation). Then Provan has shown a packing density of about 16 persons per m3.

But that packing is pretty tight. Tokyo subway trains achieve a packing density working out to the equivalent of about 9 persons per m3, iirc. Might be 6 ... I'd have to find that ... I have that figured out here somewhere on this forum. I usually use 10-12 cadavers per m3. 10 is an easy number to figure with. Just divide the m3 by 10 for a rough estimate of how many cadavers there could have been - in an order-of-magnitude type estimate.

Katyn would not apply at all. Totally different.

EDIT: I forgot to mention that I think the way Provan used this experiment of his is kind of absurd - as a measure of packing density in a gas chamber. But he nevertheless has shown a packing density of humans. And this better applies to grave packing density IMO - particularly a very deep and large grave.

EDIT 2: Roberto uses 12-20 cadavers per m3. I don't agree with this. My compromise is to use 12.

EDIT 3: I just saw BT's post. BT likes to conveniently forget all of the counter-evidence to what he is claiming that we have gone over so extensively. It's a contentious issue, no doubt, but he is deluding himself about a reasonable figure on this. We're only talking order-of-magnitude estimates so I guess we can technically accept his higher figures. The lower ones aren't realistic.

User avatar
blake121666
Posts: 3112
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:26 am
Contact:

Re: Aerial photo Treblinka II

Post by blake121666 » Thu Jun 13, 2019 1:36 pm

Nessie wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 5:20 am
Page 215 only has part of what was found. There were other pits traced by the survey. Best go and read the report, find ALL the references to pits and then do you calculation from that.
Notice that Nessie is acting like HE has done what he is asking Turnagain to do. Nessie is pretty clueless about what is in the "report" (dissertation). He wants Turnagain to analyze the dissertation so that Nessie can then bicker about anything he says about it.

Instead of Nessie himself analyzing the dissertation and telling Turnagain about the other pits and what he thinks about them - he wants Turnagain to TELL him an analysis of the dissertation. Which he'll ignore in a petulant manner - with "did too, did not" type arguments - stretching out to 10s of pages of "debate". A few pages into his "debate" he'll be saying that CSC found mountains of cremains, tiled walls, HUGE pits, ... etc"! :lol:

User avatar
blake121666
Posts: 3112
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:26 am
Contact:

Re: Aerial photo Treblinka II

Post by blake121666 » Thu Jun 13, 2019 1:53 pm

Nessie wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 5:31 am
blake121666 wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:10 pm
Nessie wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 4:28 pm
No wonder you are reluctant to discuss this from page 215;

"Five pits were located with the GPR (G50-G54) on the eastern side of the Death Camp (Figures 4.29 and 4.34). Although the GPR survey was unable to achieve a large enough depth range to determine the full extent of these pits, it is possible to say that they were all deeper than four metres and that they were all of considerable size in plan (G50 was visible to an extent of 34m x 12m, G51-19m x 12m, G52 – 22m x c.15m, G53 – c.18m x 7m and G54 was visible to 20.8m x c. 14m)."

All sizeable ground disturbances. The evidence of witnesses is further corroborated and denial has no evidenced explanation as to why the Nazis did so much digging at TII.
Here is Nessie's post about the G50 through G54 pits of Colls' dissertation.

G50: 34m x 12m = 408m2
G51: 19m x 12m = 228m2
G52: 22m x 15m = 330m2
G53: 18m x 7m = 126m2
G54: 20.8m x 14m = 291.2m2

So a total area of 1382.2m2

Nessie supplied the data to discuss and then wonders where the 1383m2 came from.

....
I posted one page that had been referred to by Turnagain. The first pit referenced in the report is G1.

Within the large area of ground disturbances seen in the aerial photo (which is 2 hectares according to the Polish Report) there are other ground disturbances. I did not think this would need explaining, but it clearly does. The aerial photo shows the surface of the ground. The Staffs Uni report is what is under ground. The original mass graves were not as big as the surface area of disturbed ground as seen in the aerial photo. The Staffs Uni survey is less, since large parts of the disturbed area in the aerial photo is now covered with a memorial and trees.

Staffs Uni were doing a ground survey primarily to find buildings and identify the gas chamber and to leave areas with buried remains undisturbed.

What they have done is to confirm what the Poles found in 1945 with their excavations and is seen in the 1944 aerial photo. The Nazis did a lot of digging at TII.

Why did they dig up so much ground in a very specific area?
They didn't - and CSC's investigation shows that. The large concreted-over area is only 1 hectare (2.65 acres).

On page 229 of CSC's dissertation she says:
CSC wrote:Demonstrated that the current memorial and subsequent on site interpretation do not represent an accurate image of the camp. It has been highlighted that the boundary of the camp is incorrectly marked, suggestions have been made for the spatial layout of the camp structures and it has been highlighted that further burial sites exist that need to be protected.

The size of the site and the scale of the remains identified, coupled with the difficulties caused by post-abandonment modification, means that this survey represents only the first step in understanding the archaeological record at Treblinka II and this data should be seen as a platform for further research.
Obviously one can read this as pertaining to boundaries and such - and even a claim of having found MORE pits than previously thought. But she obviously found LESS. One cannot arrive at a 2 hectare area of pits from her results. The pits she found to the right of the concreted-over area she measured to only about 0-2 meter depth! Those aren't the type of pits we're interested in.

Her results appear to contradict your 2 hectare claim. She did not find and confirm the type of things we are interested in. We are interested in HUGE areas of disturbed ground - reaching to significant depth.

And you do a very poor job of making sense of what she did and what you are claiming. Why don't YOU put together what she "confirm[ed] what the Poles found in 1945 with their excavations". It is because you haven't done any such thing yourself. You want others to tell you what to think, misunderstand it, and then bicker.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot] and 7 guests