Belzec's 33 fraudulently alleged "huge mass graves"

[Keen]

By examining each “proven mass grave” allegation separately, an intelligent person can easily see just how utterly vacuous and criminally fraudulent this transparent archaeological hoax really is.

I'm going to look at each one of the 33 fraudulently alleged "huge mass graves" of Belzec, as reported in this:

REPORT ON THE ARCHEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS AT THE SITE OF THE FORMER NAZI EXTERMINATION CAMP
IN BELZEC, POLAND, 1997-98 by Michael Tregenza

https://tomashov.org.il/wp-content/uplo ... 997-98.pdf

The one thing that I want to do at the start is to highlight this:

The USHMM alleges that 600,000 jews were killed at Belzec. Tregenza says this:

According to 55 testimonies, at least 6OO,000 corpses were cremated on these two pyres between November 1942 - March 1943. If we accept that only two pyres were used to cremate at least 6OO,000 corpses, and only a part of the total number of corpses were actually exhumed and cremated - as demonstrated by the 1997-98 investigations - then the total number of victims must be considerably higher than the presently accepted figure of 600,000. Similarly, if more than two pyres were in use, e.g. 3-4, during the five month period of the exhumation/cremation operation, the number of corpses cremated could have been doubled. It is therefore possible - and in agreement with the total Slated by Alojzy Berezowski, the Polish station master at Belzec, and others - that the final death toll of the Belzec extermination camp is in the region of one million victims.

I'll ignore this drivel and use the 600,000 figure.

So we have an alleged 600,000 jews allegedly buried in 33 alleged "huge mass graves" at Belzec. Let's break it down:

If all 600,000 jews were just buried in 33 "huge mass graves" then, on average, each of the 33 "huge mass graves" would contain the corpses of 18,182 jews.

If all 600,000 jews were "burnt" on "roasters" there would be a total of at least 4.380 million pounds of jewmains, including 19.2 million teeth. That would mean, on average, each "huge mass grave" would contain 132,727 pounds of jewmains, including 581,818 teeth.

Regardless of the alleged makeup of each alleged "huge mass grave," IF this nonsensical story were true, each alleged "huge mass grave" would contain, on average, the remains of 18,182 jews.

Note: If we did use the 1,000,000 figure espoused by Tregenza, each alleged "huge mass grave" would contain, on average, the remains of 30,303 jews.

Let's see if the so-called "evidence" allegedly "discovered" by Kola supports that unsubstantiated allegation.

[Keen]

I am currently challenging anyone, "revisionist" or reality denier, the following:

Let's see the proof that Kola's "study" proved that Belzec's fraudulently alleged "huge mass grave" #11 actually exists and actually contains human remians.

I haven't had any takers yet.

This is how Tregenza describes the fraudulently alleged "scientifically proven huge mass grave" #11:

Grave No. 11. A smaller grave than any hitherto discovered (with the exception of grave No.2), measures 11 m. x 9 m., located immediately adjaccnt to the NE comer of the monument/mausoleum. A few fragments of burnt human bones mixed with innumerable small pieces of carbobized wood were found at a depth of only 1.90 m.

And as a reminder here, this is how Tregenza describes how the fraudulently alleged "scientifically proven huge mass graves" allegedly came into being:

In the spring of 1943, the liquidation of the camp was started. Fences and watchtowers were taken down. buildings of brick, stone and concrete demolished, and the wooden barracks burnt down. Finally, the charred and burnt residue from the cremation pyres - burnt human bones and carbonized wood - was crushed to small fragments in a diesel - operated bone mill supervised by a Jewish prisoner.
The crushed remains were tipped into the opened and emptied mass graves.

[Archie]

I will respond here to this comment from another thread.

3) The human remains in the graves include some unburnt bodies and some cremains. The grave areas are by no means pure ash (contrary to what some of you have assumed).

Two very important points here:

1 - Kola did not prove the existence of any graves, mass or otherwise, at Belzec.

2 - Kola did not prove the existence of human remains in any form at Belzec.

Mattogno notes that of the samples for which detail was shown (presumably the more impressive samples), "more than half show only a very thin layer of sand and ash, whereas among the remainder the percentage of sand is not less than 50%, and the thickness of the sand/ash layer varies greatly."

Let me rewrite that for you so it reflects reality:

Mattogno notes that of the alleged samples for which alleged detail was allegedly shown (presumably the alleged more impressive samples), "more than half allegedly show only an alleged very thin layer of alleged sand and alleged ash, whereas among the alleged remainder the alleged percentage of alleged sand is allegedly not less than 50%, and the alleged thickness of the alleged sand/ash layer allegedly varies greatly."

You're welcome.

Keen, I think it's a very fair point that in terms of photographic evidence of actual dead bodies that they have not proved very many deaths at all. This is an awkward, even damning, fact for Holocaust promoters to deal with given that the discrepancy with the claimed death toll is so large, but the conversation doesn't stop there because they have anticipated the missing bodies problem.

They say:

1) That almost all of the bodies were burned. Hence, their story has a built-in excuse (or inb4) for the lack of bodies.

2) Various points about respect for the dead.

3) That with other events of mass violence there often is not much in the way of forensic documentation or photographic evidence. Yet surely mass violence is common even though the fraction of deaths that can be conclusively demonstrated is often very small.

You can scoff at these explanations, but a scoff is not a rebuttal. I prefer to entertain their explanations seriously and show in detail why they are unsatisfactory.

Regarding the Kola study specifically, I think your approach of intimating that Kola has fabricated the reported core samples is counterproductive. And the main reason I say that is that the published findings contradict the Holocaust story rather sharply, i.e., if we take Kola's grave dimensions as given, this consigns the 600K dead claim to the realm of fantasy since it is not realistic to bury anywhere near that many bodies in only 5,500 sq meters in area. Indeed, Kola has done us a great favor by showing that around 90% of the camp shows undisturbed strata.

If you say that Kola faked the samples, this can come off as an admission that the reported results are somehow damaging to revisionism. Why do that when it is not damaging? Is it possible Kola has faked everything? I don't think he did, but, sure, it's possible. More likely, I think his samples have a general accuracy, particularly regarding disturbed vs undisturbed soil. I think he might be guilty of some extrapolation and some spin, but overall the results look perfectly plausible to me from a revisionist perspective. Nor do I have a problem conceding there are probably human remains at Belzec. I would expect this since people died in significant numbers in all of these camps.

[Keen]

I will respond here to this comment from another thread.

3) The human remains in the graves include some unburnt bodies and some cremains. The grave areas are by no means pure ash (contrary to what some of you have assumed).

Two very important points here:

1 - Kola did not prove the existence of any graves, mass or otherwise, at Belzec.

2 - Kola did not prove the existence of human remains in any form at Belzec.

Mattogno notes that of the samples for which detail was shown (presumably the more impressive samples), "more than half show only a very thin layer of sand and ash, whereas among the remainder the percentage of sand is not less than 50%, and the thickness of the sand/ash layer varies greatly."

Let me rewrite that for you so it reflects reality:

Mattogno notes that of the alleged samples for which alleged detail was allegedly shown (presumably the alleged more impressive samples), "more than half allegedly show only an alleged very thin layer of alleged sand and alleged ash, whereas among the alleged remainder the alleged percentage of alleged sand is allegedly not less than 50%, and the alleged thickness of the alleged sand/ash layer allegedly varies greatly."

You're welcome.

Keen, I think it's a very fair point that in terms of photographic evidence of actual dead bodies that they have not proved very many deaths at all. This is an awkward, even damning, fact for Holocaust promoters to deal with given that the discrepancy with the claimed death toll is so large, but the conversation doesn't stop there because they have anticipated the missing bodies problem.

They say:

1) That almost all of the bodies were burned. Hence, their story has a built-in excuse (or inb4) for the lack of bodies.

2) Various points about respect for the dead.

3) That with other events of mass violence there often is not much in the way of forensic documentation or photographic evidence. Yet surely mass violence is common even though the fraction of deaths that can be conclusively demonstrated is often very small.

You can scoff at these explanations, but a scoff is not a rebuttal. I prefer to entertain their explanations seriously and show in detail why they are unsatisfactory.

Regarding the Kola study specifically, I think your approach of intimating that Kola has fabricated the reported core samples is counterproductive. And the main reason I say that is that the published findings contradict the Holocaust story rather sharply, i.e., if we take Kola's grave dimensions as given, this consigns the 600K dead claim to the realm of fantasy since it is not realistic to bury anywhere near that many bodies in only 5,500 sq meters in area. Indeed, Kola has done us a great favor by showing that around 90% of the camp shows undisturbed strata.

If you say that Kola faked the samples, this can come off as an admission that the reported results are somehow damaging to revisionism. Why do that when it is not damaging? Is it possible Kola has faked everything? I don't think he did, but, sure, it's possible. More likely, I think his samples have a general accuracy, particularly regarding disturbed vs undisturbed soil. I think he might be guilty of some extrapolation and some spin, but overall the results look perfectly plausible to me from a revisionist perspective. Nor do I have a problem conceding there are probably human remains at Belzec. I would expect this since people died in significant numbers in all of these camps.

Your post contains so many illogical points that I am not going to bother addressing each and every one. If you believe that Kola has proven that mass graves actually exist at Belzec and those "proven huge mass graves" actually do contain human remains, then let's get specific here:

By examining each “proven mass grave” allegation separately, an intelligent person can easily see just how utterly vacuous and criminally fraudulent this transparent archaeological hoax really is.

H - Is it - True. - or - False. - that; Mass graves have actually been discovered by archaeologists / forensic investigators at Belzec - ??

I - Can you provide credible and convincing evidence that mass graves have actually been discovered by archaeologists / forensic investigators at Belzec - Yes. - or - No. - ??

J - Is there a preponderance of credible and convincing evidence that mass graves have actually been discovered by archaeologists / forensic investigators at Belzec - Yes. - or - No. - ??

K - Can it be conclusively proven that mass graves have actually been discovered by archaeologists / forensic investigators at Belzec - Yes. - or - No. - ??

L - Is it a fact that mass graves have actually been discovered by archaeologists / forensic investigators at Belzec, - Yes. - or - No. - ??

M - Can you conclusively prove that archaeologists / forensic investigators have actually located / proven the existence of mass graves at Belzec - Yes. - or - No. - ??

1 - In total, how many single, disconnected human teeth have been tangibly discovered within the 33 alleged Belzec graves / cremation pits in question: _?_.

5 - List all of the Belzec graves / cremation pits in question that you can conclusively prove actually exist and currently contain at least an iota of human remains: _?_.

9 - List all of the Belzec graves / cremation pits in question that you can conclusively prove currently contain the remains of at least 2 human beings: _?_.

13 - List all of the Belzec graves / cremation pits in question that you can conclusively prove currently contain the remains of at least 23 human beings: _?_.

17 - Of the 33 alleged Belzec graves / cremation pits in question - the one that you can conclusively prove currently contains the most human remains is number: _?_.

How hard can it be to prove that something has been scientifically proven?

[Keen]

I would like to invite Callafangers to this conversation too.

Callafangers wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 1:04 pm
...let's be honest, these are some good questions. Here's my best guess at how Nessie would answer them:

H - Is it - True. - or - False. - that; Mass graves have actually been discovered by archaeologists / forensic investigators at Belzec - ??
True, discovered by Kola and others.

I - Can you provide credible and convincing evidence that mass graves have actually been discovered by archaeologists / forensic investigators at Belzec - Yes. - or - No. - ??
Yes, same as above. Kola's reports speak to his findings, as do the photographs which I assume are representative.

J - Is there a preponderance of credible and convincing evidence that mass graves have actually been discovered by archaeologists / forensic investigators at Belzec - Yes. - or - No. - ??
Yes, a team of individuals participated in the excavations and took core samples, which found and documented a pattern of human remains.

K - Can it be conclusively proven that mass graves have actually been discovered by archaeologists / forensic investigators at Belzec - Yes. - or - No. - ??
Yes, it logically follows that the pattern of samples taken and consistency between them suggest that corpse material was widespread in these areas.

L - Is it a fact that mass graves have actually been discovered by archaeologists / forensic investigators at Belzec, - Yes. - or - No. - ??
Yes, the evidence reflects this.

M - Can you conclusively prove that archaeologists / forensic investigators have actually located / proven the existence of mass graves at Belzec - Yes. - or - No. - ??
Yes, by careful review of the documentation provided, it appears conclusively demonstrated that mass graves exist at Belzec.

1 - In total, how many single, disconnected human teeth have been tangibly discovered within the 33 alleged Belzec graves / cremation pits in question: _?_.
This has not been precisely documented. But if I'm honest, very few teeth are explicitly documented (likely dozens at most).

5 - List all of the Belzec graves / cremation pits in question that you can conclusively prove actually exist and currently contain at least an iota of human remains: _?_.
The exact dimensions and layout of the graves is determined by the patterns in which core samples were documented as positive for human remains, with each sample typically about 5 meters apart in a grid pattern. This may not be precise or reliable as an indication of what lies between the 5 meter gaps, but I align these findings with witness statements to say this is sufficient. While the contents of each core sample necessarily being any certain percentage of human remains is often uncertain, there is frequently at least a significant portion of ash layer within these samples, and sometimes corpses in wax-fat transformation on the bottom layer.

9 - List all of the Belzec graves / cremation pits in question that you can conclusively prove currently contain the remains of at least 2 human beings: _?_.
I would simply list here any/all of the 33 graves which are documented to have any variety of human material (e.g. hair, wax-fat, ash with presumed or visible bone matter).

13 - List all of the Belzec graves / cremation pits in question that you can conclusively prove currently contain the remains of at least 23 human beings: _?_.
I would simply list here any/all of the 33 graves which have sufficient ash layers to be interpreted as potentially containing a large quantity of crushed-cremated human remains. Many of the reported graves have significant ash layers within the samples taken.

17 - Of the 33 alleged Belzec graves / cremation pits in question - the one that you can conclusively prove currently contains the most human remains is number: _?_.
[I'll let Nessie sort this out but presumably the one with the largest continuous range of positive core samples with wide and consistent ash layers.]

Callafangers, are you implying that these answers are yours as well?

[Keen]

FYI - I am going to be away from civilization for a while. Will be back in a week or two.

[Archie]

Your post contains so many illogical points that I am not going to bother addressing each and every one. If you believe that Kola has proven that mass graves actually exist at Belzec and those "proven huge mass graves" actually do contain human remains, then let's get specific here:

By examining each “proven mass grave” allegation separately, an intelligent person can easily see just how utterly vacuous and criminally fraudulent this transparent archaeological hoax really is.

There can be different standards of evidence and proof. Even with photos of mass graves (which seems to be what you focus on), someone could say the photos were faked and that therefore it's not proof. To me, the word "proof" would generally imply something stronger that what Kola provides us with. But I think it's safe to say that Kola did take core samples. And he published fairly detailed findings. Are the findings fake? I take some parts of it with a grain of salt, but I don't think the entire report is likely to be an outright fraud. If it's fake data, why not make it really impressive? Why publish fake results that undermine the story?

Keen, some questions for you.

How many people died in Europe during WWII?

How many of these deaths can you prove with "credible and convincing" forensic evidence?

[Keen]

Your post contains so many illogical points that I am not going to bother addressing each and every one. If you believe that Kola has proven that mass graves actually exist at Belzec and those "proven huge mass graves" actually do contain human remains, then let's get specific here:

By examining each “proven mass grave” allegation separately, an intelligent person can easily see just how utterly vacuous and criminally fraudulent this transparent archaeological hoax really is.

There can be different standards of evidence and proof. Even with photos of mass graves (which seems to be what you focus on), someone could say the photos were faked and that therefore it's not proof. To me, the word "proof" would generally imply something stronger that what Kola provides us with. But I think it's safe to say that Kola did take core samples. And he published fairly detailed findings. Are the findings fake? I take some parts of it with a grain of salt, but I don't think the entire report is likely to be an outright fraud. If it's fake data, why not make it really impressive? Why publish fake results that undermine the story?

Keen, some questions for you.

How many people died in Europe during WWII?

How many of these deaths can you prove with "credible and convincing" forensic evidence?

Archie, this previous post of yours: viewtopic.php?p=16363#p16363 and the above post that I'm quoting here do not belong in this thread or this section of the forum. You brought this crap over from where it belongs: viewtopic.php?p=16422#p16422 and if you want me to address it over there, ask me again in that thread.

The essence of this thread can be seen in the opening sentence of my first post:

By examining each “proven mass grave” allegation separately, an intelligent person can easily see just how utterly vacuous and criminally fraudulent this transparent archaeological hoax really is.

As I said earlier in this thread:

Regardless of the alleged makeup of each alleged "huge mass grave," IF this nonsensical story were true, each alleged "huge mass grave" would contain, on average, the remains of 18,182 jews.

Let's see if the so-called "evidence" allegedly "discovered" by Kola supports his unsubstantiated allegations.

Now Archie, I'm going to attempt to get this thread back on track. You wrote the following:

To me, the word "proof" would generally imply something stronger that what Kola provides us with. But I think it's safe to say that Kola did take core samples. And he published fairly detailed findings. Are the findings fake? I take some parts of it with a grain of salt, but I don't think the entire report is likely to be an outright fraud. If it's fake data, why not make it really impressive? Why publish fake results that undermine the story?

My response to that is this (And notice that I do not use the word "proof"):

Archie, do you belive that alleged Belzec grave #11 actually exists - Yes. - or - No. - ??

If your answer is - Yes. - then will you please show us the evidence that has led you to believe that it does in fact actually exist?

[Archie]

Archie, do you belive that alleged Belzec grave #11 actually exists - Yes. - or - No. - ??

If your answer is - Yes. - then will you please show us the evidence that has led you to believe that it does in fact actually exist?

Asked and answered. I think the reporting of the core sampling (90% natural strata) is roughly accurate. Did they "prove" the graves exist? I will repeat myself and say that this depends on the level of documentation demanded. Imo, what Kola presented falls short of "proof" since his descriptions of the samples cannot be independently confirmed.

Can you please explain what you are claiming happened? Do you think that no core sampling was done at all? Do you think Kola went to beach instead and then made up the report from whole cloth? Or do you think he did take samples but misreported the results?

You ignored the question I asked you about WWII deaths, but the answer is obviously that there many, many millions of deaths but we can show photographic "proof" for only a very minuscule fraction of them.

[Keen]

Archie, do you belive that alleged Belzec grave #11 actually exists - Yes. - or - No. - ??

If your answer is - Yes. - then will you please show us the evidence that has led you to believe that it does in fact actually exist?

Asked and answered.

Show me where you answered - Yes. - or - No. - ?? to the question and we can discuss alleged Belzec grave #11.

Can you please explain what you are claiming happened?

I'm examining alleged Belzec grave #11 at the moment - trying to find any evidence that it actually exists. I'm trying to find anyone who believes that it actually exists and trying to see the evidence that those poeple have looked at that has led them to believe that alleged Belzec grave #11 actually exists. (See here: viewtopic.php?p=16358#p16358 )

It appears that you believe that alleged Belzec grave #11 exists, but you refuse to confirm it by answering a simple yes or no question. You also refuse to show us the evidence that has led you to believe that it does actually exist.

I think the reporting of the core sampling (90% natural strata) is roughly accurate.

Show us what was reported about alleged Belzec grave #11 that has you convinced that it is an actual mass grave.

I will repeat myself and say that this depends on the level of documentation demanded. Imo, what Kola presented falls short of "proof" since his descriptions of the samples cannot be independently confirmed.

I am not demanding documentation, and at the moment, I'm not talking about proof. I'm asking you to show us what evidence you have looked at that leads you to believe alleged Belzec grave #11 actually exists. But you refuse.

You ignored the question I asked you about WWII deaths, but the answer is obviously that there many, many millions of deaths but we can show photographic "proof" for only a very minuscule fraction of them.

I did not ignore the question, and you know it. I told you I would answer it in the thread that the question originated and belongs. But you refused to comply with my request.

we can show photographic "proof" for only a very minuscule fraction of them.

I'm not asking to see photographs. I asked you this:

Archie, do you belive that alleged Belzec grave #11 actually exists - Yes. - or - No. - ??

If your answer is - Yes. - then will you please show us the evidence that has led you to believe that it does in fact actually exist?

And you responded, but you didn't answer. So I ask again:

Archie, will you please show us the evidence that has led you to believe that alleged Belzec grave #11 does in fact actually exist?

[Archie]

Archie, will you please show us the evidence that has led you to believe that alleged Belzec grave #11 does in fact actually exist?

Keen, you know what it is based on. The core samples, as reported by Kola. See below for some examples of what he reported.



You have made it clear that you think Kola's data was faked in some way; however, you have failed to be specific.

Do you think that Kola took core samples? Yes. - or - No. - ??