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.
Reverse those sentences around.
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.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.
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.There are no significant differences in those 2 maps.
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.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.
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?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.
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.Turnagain wrote: ↑Thu Jun 13, 2019 7:43 amrollo the ganger wrote: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.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.
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.Turnagain wrote: ↑Thu Jun 13, 2019 4:31 amblake121666 wrote: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.700,000 whole cadavers would need something like 700,000 cadavers / 12 cadavers/m3 = 58,333 m3.
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).
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.
They didn't - and CSC's investigation shows that. The large concreted-over area is only 1 hectare (2.65 acres).Nessie wrote: ↑Thu Jun 13, 2019 5:31 amI posted one page that had been referred to by Turnagain. The first pit referenced in the report is G1.blake121666 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:10 pmHere is Nessie's post about the G50 through G54 pits of Colls' dissertation.Nessie wrote: ↑Tue Jun 11, 2019 4:28 pmNo 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.
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.
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?
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.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.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot] and 7 guests