Archaeological Evidence of Mass Graves at Treblinka II

[ConfusedJew]

What it does disprove is the overwhelming absurdity of the official version of events for at least some 50+ years, before revisionists basically forced orthodox historians to start adjusting their stories such as to make them somewhat compatible with reality.

See that, ConfusedJew? He didn’t claim “the holocaust never happened” nor — to use your weird syntax — “never existed”.

So, either:
1. Try and learn from this and stop posting strawmen arguments;
2. Stop your pretence of being here to ‘learn’ what the revisionist arguments are and whether they are credible.

I don't know what you are talking about. You keep dodging my questions about what the Holocaust actually was.

It seems like ChatGPT made a mistake and oversimplified a response.

At Treblinka, nearly all victims were first buried in large excavated pits during 1942 and early 1943. Due to the overwhelming stench, disease risk, and Himmler’s order to destroy evidence, the SS then systematically exhumed these mass graves starting in February–March 1943, burned the corpses on giant open-air pyres built from railway tracks and wood, and reburied or scattered the ashes in the same pits or nearby sandy areas. Some of the last transports in mid-1943 were burned directly without burial. This two-phase process—first mass burial, then mass exhumation and cremation—matches SS testimony, survivor accounts, and modern forensic ground surveys, explaining how the grave area handled the total number murdered without requiring all bodies to remain intact underground at once. This matches Arad, Hilberg, Pressac, and the court-accepted forensic studies.

Even with the prior mistake, I don't see how that refutes what happened though.

[ConfusedJew]

Just in case you missed it, ConfusedJew recently told us that reading books is a waste of time. He doesn't need to read because he can just ask ChatGPT for summaries.

This is generally true but AI is not yet perfect.

[Archie]

...

Human bodies are not shaped like perfect cubes. Humans have an awkward shape which will limit the packing efficiency. This one one of many reasons why under practical conditions you would never achieve anything anywhere close to the density you are assuming.

...

The density of naked corpses, buried together in a single mass grave, is 100% corpse. As the corpses decompose under pressure, they congeal into a single mass, with no air gaps and no space taken up with clothing, coffins, or earth gaps between the buried. It is likely liquids leach out and any gasses escape, leaving the skin, bones and organs. That is how such a high density was achieved.

When Kola conducted borehole sampling at Belzec, he found what he called a waxy-fat mass, which will be the congealed remains of corpses that were not exhumed and cremated. Pawlicka-Nowak reported a corrosive substance had been added to the Chelmno mass graves.

100% corpse?



Nessie, you really shouldn't bother trying to discuss the more technical topics. You are even more hopeless on this sort of stuff than you are on history.

For one thing, these bodies were only buried a few months. Bodies do not magically "congeal into a single mass" in such a short period of time. At Katyn, the bodies had been buried for some three years and you can see in the photos that the bodies were largely intact and that many of them were identifiable. If what you are saying were true, any mass grave would turn into a big crater after a couple of months. Does that happen? No, it doesn't. You might get some settling, sure, but it's nothing like what you are imagining and nowhere near enough to solve your burial space problem. The potential to "top off" the graves due to decomposition would have been negligible.

The wax-fat transformation you refer to is called adipocere. This occurs in DAMP, WET environments. The bodyfat essentially converts into a soap-like substance. (Another error you are making is assuming that adipocere in samples from 1997 reflect the conditions of the bodies in 1943 when they would have been relatively fresh. Usually it takes several months for adipocere to form). Over the course of a few months, this process would NOT magically make most the body mass disappear. In fact, it would be better for your argument if they had been buried in a dry, desert environment where the bodies would have lost more water.

An example of what adipocere looks like.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/me ... /adipocere

[Nessie]

...

Human bodies are not shaped like perfect cubes. Humans have an awkward shape which will limit the packing efficiency. This one one of many reasons why under practical conditions you would never achieve anything anywhere close to the density you are assuming.

...

The density of naked corpses, buried together in a single mass grave, is 100% corpse. As the corpses decompose under pressure, they congeal into a single mass, with no air gaps and no space taken up with clothing, coffins, or earth gaps between the buried. It is likely liquids leach out and any gasses escape, leaving the skin, bones and organs. That is how such a high density was achieved.

When Kola conducted borehole sampling at Belzec, he found what he called a waxy-fat mass, which will be the congealed remains of corpses that were not exhumed and cremated. Pawlicka-Nowak reported a corrosive substance had been added to the Chelmno mass graves.

100% corpse?



Nessie, you really shouldn't bother trying to discuss the more technical topics. You are even more hopeless on this sort of stuff than you are on history.

The corpses were buried on top of each other, in a single grave pit, no clothing, no coffins, no earth space between them. That makes the inside of the pit, 100% corpse, which increases corpse density compared to any other mass grave, such as found at Katyn.

For one thing, these bodies were only buried a few months. Bodies do not magically "congeal into a single mass" in such a short period of time. At Katyn, the bodies had been buried for some three years and you can see in the photos that the bodies were largely intact and that many of them were identifiable. If what you are saying were true, any mass grave would turn into a big crater after a couple of months. Does that happen? No, it doesn't. You might get some settling, sure, but it's nothing like what you are imagining and nowhere near enough to solve your burial space problem. The potential to "top off" the graves due to decomposition would have been negligible.

The corpses at Katyn were clothed, so that mass grave was not 100% corpse. We know from the bore hole sampling, that not all the corpses were exhumed and cremated, since corpses remained to congeal into the wax fat mass Kola found.

The wax-fat transformation you refer to is called adipocere. This occurs in DAMP, WET environments. The bodyfat essentially converts into a soap-like substance. (Another error you are making is assuming that adipocere in samples from 1997 reflect the conditions of the bodies in 1943 when they would have been relatively fresh. Usually it takes several months for adipocere to form). Over the course of a few months, this process would NOT magically make most the body mass disappear. In fact, it would be better for your argument if they had been buried in a dry, desert environment where the bodies would have lost more water.

From your source, the image you posted was a 10 day old corpse.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/me ... /adipocere

"Under ideal warm, damp conditions, adipocere may be apparent to the naked eye after 3–4 weeks. Ordinarily, this requires some months and extensive adipocere is usually not seen before 5 or 6 months after death."

The first corpses were being buried in July 1942 and exhumations began in early 1943, so 6 months later, which means that many of the corpses at the bottom of the pits would be at least well on their way to forming adipocere. That would make for a 100% corpse volume, with no gaps and nothing else, like clothing, to take up space.

[Wahrheitssucher]

What it does disprove is the overwhelming absurdity of the official version of events for at least some 50+ years, before revisionists basically forced orthodox historians to start adjusting their stories such as to make them somewhat compatible with reality.

See that, ConfusedJew? He didn’t claim “the holocaust never happened” nor — to use your weird syntax — “never existed”.

So, either:
1. Try and learn from this and stop posting strawmen arguments;
2. Stop your pretence of being here to ‘learn’ what the revisionist arguments are and whether they are credible.

I don't know what you are talking about.

Really? If so that’s maybe quite revealing.

I am trying to get you to see that your claim that myself and all other revisionists are denying “the holocaust happened” or “existed” is a strawman fallacy. Revisionists are revising the narrative by exposing parts of that narrative which can not withstand close scrutiny. They are not ‘denying’ the entirety of the narrative.

You keep dodging my questions about what the Holocaust actually was.

Yeah. Because I’m asking YOU to first quote someone denying “the holocaust existed” and to specify what you think “the holocaust” is that you claim was denied.
That is with the same intention, to get you to see how your approach to the discussion is based on a false assumption and in ignorance of what the actual debate is about.

It seems like ChatGPT made a mistake and oversimplified a response.

This demonstrates why no-one can gain a correct understanding by ONLY relying on an Ai robot.

Even with the prior mistake, I don't see how that refutes what happened though.

This is further proof that you are coming at the discussion with a fixed opinion of “what happened”. I suggest that is subliminal. You are doing that unconsciously. I also suggest you recognise this and break that subliminal intellectual rigidity.
At the moment that won’t be possible because you aren’t thinking it through for yourself but are relying on a robotic Ai to think for you. Ai that is programmed to perpetuate the currently obligatory consensus understanding.

Why not try understanding by yourself. That will require reading some books and preferably also some primary sources.

The currently obligatory consensus holocaust narrative regarding Treblinka is a good place to start as it is the most obviously impossible on a purely empirical basis. By that I mean, the empirical evidence very clearly refutes the official narrative on numerous particulars. But you won’t ever learn in which ways by relying on any Ai software.

[ConfusedJew]

This is further proof that you are coming at the discussion with a fixed opinion of “what happened”. I suggest that is subliminal. You are doing that unconsciously. I also suggest you recognise this and break that subliminal intellectual rigidity.
At the moment that won’t be possible because you aren’t thinking it through for yourself but are relying on a robotic Ai to think for you. Ai that is programmed to perpetuate the currently obligatory consensus understanding.

Why not try understanding by yourself. That will require reading some books and preferably also some primary sources.

The currently obligatory consensus holocaust narrative regarding Treblinka is a good place to start as it is the most obviously impossible on a purely empirical basis. By that I mean, the empirical evidence very clearly refutes the official narrative on numerous particulars. But you won’t ever learn in which ways by relying on any Ai software.

AI is not simply programmed to perpetuate consensus. It can think through things from first principles on its own if you guide it properly.

I have an understanding of what actually happened, as do you. My opinion is not fixed, however yours seems to be. It would be a lot more effective if you stick to arguments and facts rather than making misguided attacks on how you think I am approaching this.

This is an Internet forum, I came here to talk to people who claim to know more about these things than I do. If I wanted to read long books, then I would have started there.

What exactly do you think happened at Treblinka? Why did it exist and what do you believe is different about Treblinka from what most accepted historians believe? You keep dodging this question.

[Wahrheitssucher]

This is further proof that you are coming at the discussion with a fixed opinion of “what happened”. I suggest that is subliminal. You are doing that unconsciously. I also suggest you recognise this and break that subliminal intellectual rigidity.
At the moment that won’t be possible because you aren’t thinking it through for yourself but are relying on a robotic Ai to think for you. Ai that is programmed to perpetuate the currently obligatory consensus understanding.

Why not try understanding by yourself. That will require reading some books and preferably also some primary sources.

The currently obligatory consensus holocaust narrative regarding Treblinka is a good place to start as it is the most obviously impossible on a purely empirical basis. By that I mean, the empirical evidence very clearly refutes the official narrative on numerous particulars. But you won’t ever learn in which ways by relying on any Ai software.

I have an understanding of what actually happened, as do you.

Your current understanding is NOT the result of your own research and thinking. You have demonstrated this numerous times in numerous different topic discussions.

My opinion is not fixed…

For that to be accurate you would need to demonstrate an admission of error or a ‘before-and-after’ change of mind here at CODOH forum. Please do that. Provide evidence to support your claim

…however your [opinion] seems to be.

That is another false insinuation. A rather immature ‘tu quoque’ logically fallacious argument.
I can supply three occassions here at CODOH when I admitted error and “changed my mind”. One was regarding Pressac being a revisionist. Another was regarding DNA results. Do you require proof? Or will you concede your response was a false ‘tu quoque’ logical fallacy?

It would be a lot more effective if you stick to arguments and facts rather than making misguided attacks on how you think I am approaching this.

Do you agree that it would be pointless discussing with someone who is not interested in honest discussion or is in denial about their own approach to the discussion?

This is an Internet forum, I came here to talk to people who claim to know more about these things than I do. If I wanted to read long books, then I would have started there.

That is a fair point. But it only applies initially.
You have been participating here for a while and yet you display no sign that your position has moved at all on anything.
Plus when provided with links to detailed information that refutes your current viewpoint you don’t read it, let alone analyse it honestly and intelligently with an attitude of open, flexible enquiry.

What exactly do you think happened at Treblinka? Why did it exist and what do you believe is different about Treblinka from what most accepted historians believe? You keep dodging this question.

This is the logical fallacy called ‘moving the goalposts’.
Please answer whether you can see that and concede that you again replied with a logically fallacious response.

This topic is about whether the actual empirical, archeological evidence supports the claim of there ever having been mass-graves containing the cremains of an alleged 750 to 900 thousand corpses.
There has as yet never been provided any evidence of that in terms of tons of ash, nor in terms of requisite ground disturbance, nor in terms of quantities of teeth.
Q1. Do you yet understand how many bodies are alleged to have been buried at TII before any cremation supposedly began?
Q2. Do you yet understand how large a mass-grave would need to be to contain that many bodies?
Q3. Do you know approximately how many tons of ash and bone-shards 750,000 cremated bodies would produce?
Q4. Do you know approximately how many teeth 750,000 cremated bodies would produce?

[Stubble]

For posterity, 'long book' =/< 400p.

[ConfusedJew]

This topic is about whether the actual empirical, archeological evidence supports the claim of there ever having been mass-graves containing the cremains of an alleged 750 to 900 thousand corpses.
There has as yet never been provided any evidence of that in terms of tons of ash, nor in terms of requisite ground disturbance, nor in terms of quantities of teeth.

Again, I'm not going to respond to your disrespectful bloviating. If you feel like trying that again, do not expect a response.

This topic, that I started, is about the archaeological evidence of mass graves at Treblinka.

Archaeological surveys, including ground-penetrating radar and core drilling, have identified large areas of disturbed soil, multiple pits consistent with mass graves, and layers containing ash, burned soil, bone fragments, and teeth. These findings match the documented history. The Nazis initially buried hundreds of thousands of victims in mass graves, then later exhumed the bodies, burned them on open-air pyres, crush the remaining bones and teeth, and disperse the ashes specifically to conceal the crime. Over more than eighty years, natural processes—weathering, soil mixing, erosion, and plant growth—further scattered and degraded these remains. Unlike modern cemeteries, there were no coffins or urns; the remains were intentionally pulverized and spread. You are not going to find the remains of 800,000 or so humans because the remains were crushed, cremated, and scattered.

However, the archaeological studies clearly found fragmented bones and teeth so how do you explain that away?

Additionally, religious law generally prohibits full exhumation and disturbance of Jewish burial sites, limiting the extent of modern excavation. Despite these factors, partial excavations and non-invasive studies consistently reveal physical evidence exactly where historical sources describe. Therefore, the absence of a single, undisturbed mound of ash does not disprove the killings; on the contrary, the physical and documentary evidence together support the historical account of mass burial, exhumation, and deliberate destruction of remains.

Please stick to the subject at hand. If you make a good point or present a new fact, I will take it into consideration and adjust my stance. Also, avoid personal attacks, long convoluted responses, and please be direct. That will save everybody time and annoyance. If the truth is on your side, you will ultimately persuade me, or we will reach a point where we agree on basic facts and just interpret them differently. Don't get so emotional about this process. Thanks.

[Wahrheitssucher]

This topic is about whether the actual empirical, archeological evidence supports the claim of there ever having been mass-graves containing the cremains of an alleged 750 to 900 thousand corpses.
There has as yet never been provided any evidence of that in terms of tons of ash, nor in terms of requisite ground disturbance, nor in terms of quantities of teeth.

Again, I'm not going to respond to your disrespectful bloviating. If you feel like trying that again, do not expect a response.

This topic, that I started, is about the archaeological evidence of mass graves at Treblinka.

Archaeological surveys, including ground-penetrating radar and core drilling, have identified large areas of…

You dodged very simple and reasonable questions.

That suggests you either:
a.) can not honestly answer them as you know the answers refute the Treblinka narrative;
b.) don’t know the answers and are arguing from ignorance the whole time.

Both alternatives show someone who is not being honest in their approach to discussion here.

So where does that leave you?
You don’t concede error ever.
You have never shown any increased learning on any topic,
nor any ‘change of opinion’.
You refuse to read any detailed rebuttal of your fixed viewpoint.
You repeatedly make false claims but never acknowledge that when they are refuted.
You routinely reply using logically fallacious reasoning but NEVER concede that when it is shown to you.

This reply is further evidence that:
1. you do not know what the revisionists are arguing regarding i.) TII and the archeological evidence there, nor ii.) the holocaust narrative in general.
2. aren’t genuinely interested in learning anything or in engaging in honest, open discussion here about TII or about the flaws in the the holocaust narrative in general.

[ConfusedJew]

I'm not going to respond to that kind of a tone. If you want to address me respectfully and also answer my questions, then we can resume discussion.

[Wahrheitssucher]

I'm not going to respond to that kind of a tone. If you want to address me respectfully and also answer my questions, then we can resume discussion.

Oh dear. Another deception from you (whether self-deception or deliberate deceitful avoidance, you know best).
This isn’t about you not responding because of tone, but about YOU avoiding genuine, rigorous debate when your ignorance and intellectually dishonest approach to the TII archeological evidence is exposed.

SUMMARY: another true-believer gets upset when they lose the argument but can’t admit it.

Deborah Lipstadt, Nick Terry, Roberto Muhlenkamp and all the anonymous trolls. How revealing that despite attacking revisionists with ad hominem, criminalisation, intimidation and censorship for decades, there still isn’t a single holocaust proponent who can argue for their belief-system honestly, intelligently and convincingly.

This topic is about whether the actual empirical, archeological evidence supports the claim of there ever having been mass-graves containing the cremains of an alleged 750 to 900 thousand corpses.
There has as yet never been provided any evidence of that in terms of tons of ash, nor in terms of requisite ground disturbance, nor in terms of quantities of teeth.

This topic, that I started, is about the archaeological evidence of mass graves at Treblinka.

Archaeological surveys, including ground-penetrating radar and core drilling, have identified large areas of…

You dodged very simple and reasonable questions.

That suggests you either:
a.) can not honestly answer them as you know the answers refute the Treblinka narrative;
b.) don’t know the answers and are arguing from ignorance the whole time.

Both alternatives show someone who is not being honest in their approach to discussion here.

So where does that leave you?
You don’t concede error ever.
You have never shown any increased learning on any topic,
nor any ‘change of opinion’.
You refuse to read any detailed rebuttal of your fixed viewpoint.
You repeatedly make false claims but never acknowledge that when they are refuted.
You routinely reply using logically fallacious reasoning but NEVER concede that when it is shown to you.

This reply is further evidence that:
1. you do not know what the revisionists are arguing regarding i.) TII and the archeological evidence there, nor ii.) the holocaust narrative in general.
2. aren’t genuinely interested in learning anything or in engaging in honest, open discussion here about TII or about the flaws in the the holocaust narrative in general.

[Stubble]

What am I supposedly lying about? The Poles recorded an area of 2 hectares, up to 7m deep, of disturbed ground containing cremated human remains. Prove that is a lie. C S-C recorded 6 pits around the main memorial, where the mass graves were located by the witnesses. Prove that is a lie.

Nessie, you are drawing on Soviet/Polish investigation, then saying the Colls study confirms it.

It doesn't.

You've linked the lidar before, go look at it.

The grave space (proposed, not forensically examined in any way, be it bore study, excavation etc) is not only woefully inadequate for the claim, it also does not comport with the 'extraordinary commissions'.

That is your lie. That is where you lied. That is your misrepresentation.

[Nessie]

What am I supposedly lying about? The Poles recorded an area of 2 hectares, up to 7m deep, of disturbed ground containing cremated human remains. Prove that is a lie. C S-C recorded 6 pits around the main memorial, where the mass graves were located by the witnesses. Prove that is a lie.

Nessie, you are drawing on Soviet/Polish investigation, then saying the Colls study confirms it.

It doesn't.

You've linked the lidar before, go look at it.

You cannot prove that the Poles and then C S-C is lying that there are large areas of disturbed ground, in the area of the camp where witnesses stated the graves were located and the 1944 aerial photo shows disturbed ground.

C S-C used GPR and electrical resistance surveys that identified a series of large pits.

The grave space (proposed, not forensically examined in any way, be it bore study, excavation etc) is not only woefully inadequate for the claim, it also does not comport with the 'extraordinary commissions'.

That is your lie. That is where you lied. That is your misrepresentation.

You are lying. The Poles excavated in 1945. You misrepresent the archaeological evidence, as you cannot bring yourself to accept that it proves large areas of disturbed ground, containing cremated human remains, are at the camp, corroborating the witness claims of mass graves and cremations.

[HansHill]

You are lying. The Poles excavated in 1945. You misrepresent the archaeological evidence, as you cannot bring yourself to accept that it proves large areas of disturbed ground, containing cremated human remains, are at the camp, corroborating the witness claims of mass graves and cremations.

The irony - its you who are misrepesenting the archaeological evidence. The Poles dug exactly where Rajzman guided them to. They left completely empty handed after a five (5) day dig. Stop embarrassing yourself.