Please explain in detail with examples why the archaeology at Sobibor, Belzec and TII does not suffice. I agree with you that Chelmno and Maly Trostenets are examples of camps with insufficient archaeology.Hektor wrote:You keep on posting stuff that does not suffice, speculating on readers credulity, repeating and pointing to it again doesn't make it better.Nessie.. wrote:..
I keep on being asked for evidence of the bodies, I give it and then get asked again. I can only refer you to my previous posts on the archaeology at the sites.
Staffs Uni have confirmed large parts of what the 1946 Polish investigation have found. With gpr there are large areas of disturbed ground at TII with evidence of cremains lying around on the surface found during a walkover. So there is corroboration of what Lukaszkiewicz found. There has also been more than one survey at the other sites, which also corroborate each other. Please give me an example of what you would call a proper archaeological study.Hektor wrote:1946, what was there again in Poland? Ah, Soviet occupation and Communist rule in Poland. And then we have an official report on this. Something to put dirt on the arch-enemies of the Soviet Union, which has good motive to cover its own tracks. The "research" those people have done wasn't falsifiable (and was corroborated neither) and hence is out of the scope of serious science.Nessie.. wrote:
Whilst you say no remotely serious work has been done at TII, others regard the work by Lukaszkiewicz in 1946 and Staffs Uni since 2013 as serious work by trained academics. So in 1946 work had been done to show it was a site containing many cremated human remains. In the 1960s it was memorialised. Now another investigation has been conducted. Meanwhile numerous historical studies have been conducted, again by academics. So sorry if you do not think that is serious work, others do.
There was work done in the 1960s when the monument was built, but that is all I ever found out. I cannot find any detail of what the work was and what they found.Hektor wrote: You say 2013? I say 1945 + 60 = 2005. And that's out of the scope of my statement.
I disagree what has been found proves "low mortality" as the ash and cremains cannot be quantified. So in the same way you point out I cannot do a body count, neither can you.Hektor wrote:But they keep on putting out stuff that only confirms the Revisionist thesis concerning the camps. It proves some low mortality expected during war time nothing else. Of course on the credulous they have a different effect, they're religious relics to strengthen the faith. Any rational researcher would have come up with a different conclusion: "Look, I found A, B C. They prove that a number of people have died there and were buried, or cremated in the area of the camp. But they don't prove anything remotely in the range of hundreds of thousands of gassed Jewish victims, as has been previously claimed by historians. We are sorry, but that just was atrocity propaganda from the era of World War Two,"
Do you see them doing that? It seems all they do is follow their confirmation bias lacking the integrity and honesty one should expect from a professional scientist.
On the other hand, at least they try to do something more then there previous "consensus science" and hide-and-seek with the evidence they were playing. But I think the credit here must go to the Revisionists again. They won't do a thing, if everybody did just shut up and believe the narrative like gospel.
So the work is to establish the numbers another way. That has been achieved with the records of mass arrivals ( for example Hofle, Zabecki, transports from Warsaw, Westerbork transit lists) and the lack of evidence for mass departures. Those records are then corroborated by the witnesses to the atrocities at the camps. So my A, B and C is archaeology, records and witnesses with a D of no evidence of mass transports elsewhere.