Why does SanityCheck evade the Physical Evidence Question?

[Nessie]

.

Reported. This thread is about Dr Terry's statements & conclusions addressing the physical evidence as presented by Revisionists.

The thread is on why Sanity Check does not debate the "Physical Evidence Question", which some are now changing into debating him on physical evidence. They, like you, want to evade debating the valid reasons why a historian does not get involved, in any detail, in debates about chemistry, or thermodynamics. Those reasons lead into why you should also be more circumspect about your ability to debate those topics and why your conclusions are wrong.

My response to Stubble, which you have reported, answers the topic's main question, whilst also countering a few factual errors he has made. Not knowing and misrepresenting the historical evidence, is wrong. Failing to produce a revised narrative is wrong. The "physical evidence question" is a dressed up argument from incredulity. Those three issues are interlinked.

Sanity Check is a historian and he constantly proves his knowledge of the historical evidence is far greater than anyone else here. Revisionists try to counter that by debating him where they think they have the upper hand, with the physical evidence. But, they don't have the upper hand, and it is for blindingly obvious reasons, that Sanity Check understands. I point that out, you don't like it and rather than debate me, you report.

I challenge you to explain to me, logically and evidentially, how the "physical evidence question" works and how it proves there were no gas chambers, mass cremations, graves and pyres.

[HansHill]

Debate me, bro!

You are the least skilled user I have seen here, and anytime you get into a """""debate"""""" you tactically retreat to the appeal to authority fallacy and begin throwing your slop around wasting everyone's time. I will answer your question, not because you deserve it, but to show how impotent and sloppy your posts are.

Here Nessie gets his undies in a twist over Dr Terry being held to account for his statements on the physical evidence (my posts have centered on Birkenau / PB residues, others have commented more broadly). The observant reader will notice that Dr Terry initially stated:

while there were good reasons to disregard the Prussian Blue claim as unconvincing.

When pressed, he stated this was mainly due to exposure time. After dealing with exposure time (kinetics) he begins a pivot to environmental factors, invoking the erosion of unbound cyanide as the key explainer between the Kremas & Delousing facilities.

Our observant reader will in turn recognize that this casts huge problems for the Markiewicz methodology which focused entirely on these unbound cyanides that Dr Terry recognizes as volalite, finding mere detection limit quantities. It feels from this vantage point, that Dr Terry isn't basing his initial opinion on a rigourous understanding of the technical arguments after all, since he is undermining his own source (Markieqicz) for the reasons stated above.

[Stubble]

Herr Hill, feel free to correct me here if I am wrong. When one reads the study don't Markiewicz et al state that they 'can't understand how Prussian Blue could form'? Isn't that pretty much the foundational basis for their study?

In defense of it, I seem to recall that said defense was basically just personal attacks and ad homs on Germar, wasn't it? Green eventually tried to mount a defense of the study conducted by Markiewicz et al but that defense wasn't to refute Germar, but, to say 'Chemistry is not the Science'.

I believe that is what is referred to in debate as a 'retreat' or 'concession'.

Now, I could be wrong, and I am open to correction, but, unless I'm mistaken, that's what happened with 'The Refutation of Rudolf' from Markiewicz et al.

[Nessie]

...Debate me, bro!

You are the least skilled user I have seen here, and anytime you get into a """""debate"""""" you tactically retreat to the appeal to authority fallacy and begin throwing your slop around wasting everyone's time. I will answer your question, not because you deserve it, but to show how impotent and sloppy your posts are.

The topic here is "Why does SanityCheck (anti-revisionist 'Holocaust' academia's leading man) so strongly avoid all matters of physical evidence with regard to 'Holocaust' evidence?". One of the answers is because the physical evidence question is logically flawed.

Here Nessie gets his undies in a twist over Dr Terry being held to account for his statements on the physical evidence (my posts have centered on Birkenau / PB residues, others have commented more broadly). The observant reader will notice that Dr Terry initially stated:

while there were good reasons to disregard the Prussian Blue claim as unconvincing.

When pressed, he stated this was mainly due to exposure time. After dealing with exposure time (kinetics) he begins a pivot to environmental factors, invoking the erosion of unbound cyanide as the key explainer between the Kremas & Delousing facilities.

Our observant reader will in turn recognize that this casts huge problems for the Markiewicz methodology which focused entirely on these unbound cyanides that Dr Terry recognizes as volalite, finding mere detection limit quantities. It feels from this vantage point, that Dr Terry isn't basing his initial opinion on a rigourous understanding of the technical arguments after all, since he is undermining his own source (Markieqicz) for the reasons stated above.

I asked you to explain how the physical evidence question is valid, logically and evidentially. You have ignored me and swivelled to talking about the physical evidence.

I say that the physical evidence question fails logically, because it follows the format of argument from incredulity, whereby you argue that because neither you nor Rudolf can work out how gassings were possible, based on testing for HCN residue and the lack of Prussian blue in what can be seen of the interiors of the gas chambers, that is evidence to prove there were no gassings. That is logically flawed, since just because you and Rudolf cannot work out how gassings happened, does not therefore mean there were no gassings. That you do not like Sanity Check's explanations, based on Markiewicz, does not therefore mean you have proved no gassings.

I also say the physical evidence question fails evidentially, because, as Sanity Check has pointed out, there is an overwhelming abundance of evidence, far more than you will ever admit to, that proves gassings did take place. You can provide no evidential case, to prove a different usage for the Kremas, when they were reported to be used for gassing.

What is your logical and evidential counter to my points?

[Stubble]

[...]

Dr Terry, I'm surprised at you Sir.

Look, I don't care how many documents there are that indicate people went to a place. Those documents will never be a mass grave. This is true for the people who recently attended the superbowl as well. We know they went, because of ticket stubs. We don't have any paper document showing they left. It doesn't therefore follow that a 'genocide' occurred there after the game.

If you are going to claim the population of Seattle was buried, dug up, and cremated at Treblinka II, you are going to have to show me where on that patch of dirt. Point please, to where the population of Seattle was buried in the physical area of Treblinka II.

Furthermore, your attack on Krege is misplaced. He said 'mostly undisturbed'. This is confirmed by the CSC study. They found a sharks tooth during one of their test digs, indicating the ground was undisturbed for millennia. They found some soil disturbance, but, for the claim, it amounts to a thimble. Ultimately, Krege is correct when saying 'the area of the camp is mostly undisturbed for millennia', demonstrably so. You can try to argue that he is wrong, but, to do so is simply dressing a window. Saying he is wrong when his findings are borne out is not going to paint you as credible and it would behoove you to either admit an error on your part, or to show where exactly you think the population of Seattle was buried on that patch of dirt.

[HansHill]

Herr Hill, feel free to correct me here if I am wrong. When one reads the study don't Markiewicz et al state that they 'can't understand how Prussian Blue could form'? Isn't that pretty much the foundational basis for their study?

In defense of it, I seem to recall that said defense was basically just personal attacks and ad homs on Germar, wasn't it? Green eventually tried to mount a defense of the study conducted by Markiewicz et al but that defense wasn't to refute Germar, but, to say 'Chemistry is not the Science'.

I believe that is what is referred to in debate as a 'retreat' or 'concession'.

Now, I could be wrong, and I am open to correction, but, unless I'm mistaken, that's what happened with 'The Refutation of Rudolf' from Markiewicz et al.

Yes this is a good summary. Just some notes:

Dr Markiewicz et all do openly admit to not understanding the chemical processes at work to produce PB. It is not an unfounded inference to in turn say, based on this non-understanding of PB, they also don't understand that PB is a far more rigorous fingerprint into the past than non-iron-bound cyanide for the reasons Dr Terry correctly notes (volatility).

Therefore, they openly and admittedly measured the wrong thing without knowing why. At least that's the charitable interpretation. A less charitable interpretation would be they omitted PB because they intended to find uniform readings of the wrong thing across both locations. Uniform can then = gassings happened in both locations!

Dr Green then was a little more sophisticated and conceded an awful lot to Rudolf, and granted almost all of his premises (that PB was formed in the del chambers due to HcN exposure, which Markiewicz & Bailer blustered so poorly about, and the mechanisms of such). Green's only real departure from Rudolf is not on the process or mechanism of PB formation per se (this was all but granted), but rather the pH being inhospitable on step 3 of Rudolf's 5 steps in one location and not the other. Green did blather about a few other things like washing and exposure times but both were addressed by Rudolf in subsequent writings.

[Stubble]

Given the suppression of the first study that did test for iron blue, I lean toward the less charitable interpretation, just to be clear here.

There is a pattern with the Krakow group which can be observed when taking a high level view of their work looking at it all together. This pattern points to rigging their study to confirm a predetermined outcome.

[Callafangers]

...

Thanks, Dr. Terry. I hope this summary captures your latest arguments effectively:

- Polish Resident Witnesses to Smoke/Stench (Rejects Claim of "Few" Statements):
- Considerable statements exist for Treblinka/Belzec (decomposition stench strongest).
- Recommends Spaces of Treblinka (Flaws, 2024, Ch. 5: Sensory Space) as starting point; also in Belzec literature and local context studies.
- Cites Wehrmacht Ortskommandantur Ostrow report: "Jews in Treblinka... not sufficiently buried... unbearable smell of corpses" (war diary of GG quartermaster).

- Falsifiability of Mass Graves/Cremains (Rejects as Misapplied):
- Argues revisionists demand perpetual excavation/inspection for legitimacy, invalidating any memorialized cemetery (e.g., urban graves built over).
- Mainstream position: Evidence of burial/cremation confirmed (1940s probes, 40+ yrs archaeology at AR/Chelmno; air photos/mapping).
- Memorials post-dated investigations (Treblinka 60 yrs ago; Belzec/Sobibor pre-memorial digs).
- Applies equally to non-Holocaust graves (e.g., Waterloo bones filched); not unique to Nazis.

- Revisionist AR Camp Arguments (Historical/Interpretive Critique):
- Krege GPR "no disturbance since ice age" overblown/dropped (endorsed by Rudolf/M&G Treblinka thru 2024).
- Mattogno (2004 Belzec) accepts Kola (1997-99) graves but lowballs bodies; unconvincing (e.g., bombsaway skepticism).
- Revisionist "vibe-based" claims (e.g., "corpses should be there under rev. framework") circular, ignore historical sources; prehistoric-site pretense.

- Belzec Death Toll/Explanation (Hoefle + Regional Context):
- Hoefle (2001 pub.): 434k "Zugang" (72% of 1945 600k est.); ignores 1943 Galicia killings (graves identified).
- Factors reducing toll: Train-jumpers killed en route (bodies elsewhere; 77 survivors); cremation from Nov 1942 (50-60k Nov/9-12k Dec unburied); increased workforce for exhumation.
- Deportations violent (e.g., Kolomea-Belzec: 8k, 3/4 escaped, guards out of ammo); 179+ Galicia shootings + 129 deportations (Pohl, 1990s).
- No en-route/labor selections; revisable with new evidence.

- Core Challenge to Revisionism:
- Must locate deportees' fates (historical sources vanish them at camps); "technical arguments" (e.g., Rudolf) are a dead-end without this.
- Revisionists stuck 22 yrs post-Mattogno (2004); no revised history/whereabouts found despite research access.
- Mainstream advances via sources (e.g., smell/cremation docs); "build your own Holocaust" = standard research.

Before moving on, let's first be clear on those areas which you have not fully addressed (from my last reply):

- FeCN/Prussian Blue at Birkenau (Dismissal Unchallenged):
- Rudolf comprehensively modeled exposure (similar to delousing chambers); FeCN highly stable (trivial weathering, esp. unweathered samples like ceilings).
- SC Failure: No rebuttal to modeling/stability; reiterates general factors (exposure/ventilation) without specifics.

- Birkenau Crematoria Capacity/Maintenance (Unaddressed):
- No refractory brick maintenance records matching alleged scale; air photos show no constant/expected cremation activity.
- SC Failure: Ignores entirely; prior SC post vaguely noted multi-corpse/T4 parallels but no maintenance/air photo response.

- Overlapping Cremations Infeasibility (Unaddressed Math):
- Max ~10-15% time reduction (UHV: lean corpses ~40k kcal avail., 54% furnace efficiency → ~30-40k kcal usable vs. 200k-330k kcal demand/corpse).
- Efficiency losses from multi-corpse (airflow/draft/timing); requires implausibly well-fed Jews (~3k cal/day diets).
- SC Failure: No engagement with calcs/efficiency; vaguely cites multi-corpse feasibility without quantification.

- Sobibor Grave Volumes/Contents (Specifics Unaddressed):
- Kola's initial dense Graves 1/2 contradicted by Mazurek excavations (Grave 1 empty; Grave 2/7 mostly empty).
- Objective totals: 2,702–17,010 corpses (detailed per-grave ranges); refutes high-density claims.
- SC Failure: No Sobibor mention; Belzec Kola focus ignores contradictions/excavation discrepancies.

- AR Fuel/Wood Needs Scale (Minimally Addressed):
- Treblinka: ~350kg/corpse × 800k = 280M kg (largest burning ever; unprecedented, unevidenced "local" supply).
- No records/Polish witnesses to relentless smoke/mushroom clouds near homes.
- SC Failure: Cites general/local wood (e.g., Waldkommando) but ignores total scale/math; witnesses only for stench (not smoke volume).

- Falsifiability/Scientific Legitimacy (Partially Addressed but Incomplete):
- Monuments legally block further excavation; exterminationist claims unfalsifiable (vs. revisionist testable predictions).
- SC Failure: Rejects as misapplied (e.g., memorials common) but doesn't counter monument-specific prevention or prior digs' sparsity (e.g., Lukasciewicz/Mazurek/Sturdy-Colls showing economic ops, not mass graves).

Overall: SC pivots to historical narratives/Belzec (e.g., train-jumpers, regional killings) without falsifying physical/math specifics; reinforces "revisionists must locate deportees" but evades direct physical rebuttals.

I hope you will consider still directly addressing these missing elements above.

As for those areas you did touch on, I will respond briefly:

- Considerable statements exist for Treblinka/Belzec (decomposition stench strongest).
- Recommends Spaces of Treblinka (Flaws, 2024, Ch. 5: Sensory Space) as starting point; also in Belzec literature and local context studies.
- Cites Wehrmacht Ortskommandantur Ostrow report: "Jews in Treblinka... not sufficiently buried... unbearable smell of corpses" (war diary of GG quartermaster).

No one questions or challenges that there were corpses at Treblinka/Belzec. The problem for you, once again, is a matter of scale and duration. Your narrative entails many months of non-stop mushroom cloud plumes of extremely foul smoke and odor terrorizing all nearby residents, in a populated area (one where NSDAP travel guides encouraged tourism, as well). You have pointed to a book chapter but it would be best if you at least quantify (and perhaps briefly qualify) the statements you claim are contained therein. Some of us may be interested in purchasing the book you reference however others might simply like to know what strength of argument you are (or are not) actually standing on. The Wehrmacht report could be of interest however without an accessible reference/citation, you are expecting readers here to trust your transcription/translation and inclusion of applicable context. Experience has shown this would be ill-advised. Kindly link to an available reference (archival record, transcription published online, etc.), if possible.

- Mainstream position: Evidence of burial/cremation confirmed (1940s probes, 40+ yrs archaeology at AR/Chelmno; air photos/mapping).
- Memorials post-dated investigations (Treblinka 60 yrs ago; Belzec/Sobibor pre-memorial digs).

This evades the matter of scale entirely, which is paramount to an understanding of what actually happened.

- Krege GPR "no disturbance since ice age" overblown/dropped (endorsed by Rudolf/M&G Treblinka thru 2024).
- Mattogno (2004 Belzec) accepts Kola (1997-99) graves but lowballs bodies; unconvincing (e.g., bombsaway skepticism).
- Revisionist "vibe-based" claims (e.g., "corpses should be there under rev. framework") circular, ignore historical sources; prehistoric-site pretense.

If I recall correctly, Krege's work was never actually completed nor provided to M&G, and various circumstances led to its omission in later editions. In any case, this at most reflects the meta-history in revisionism, not exactly relevant for our purposes here.

Mattogno didn't casually 'lowball' the bodies at Belzec. His analysis is sound, reflecting a charitable yet grounded assessment of actual, documented findings. You're welcomed to challenge it, of course, but there is much which would need to be addressed (documented boundaries/depth (volume), corpse density, disturbances, etc.).

As for a "vibe-based" framework, this is a distortion. Exterminationists accept 'witness' statements a priori as truthful until individually proven false. Unique patterns of this period (contradictions, motives, deceptions) show this cannot be the right approach. More objective forms of evidence (physical measurements) become higher in priority, and when these objective forms direct away from 'witness' claims, alternate explanations for fewer corpses (i.e. train-travel deaths, ghetto disease corpses/disposal -- all of which are far more acceptable inferences than, say, hundreds of millions of KG of mysterious wood shipments) come to the fore as most likely.

I don't see the value of your discussion of the Hoefle telegram in our current debate, nor of examples of 'train-jumpers'. Corpses were on the trains which were sent to AR camps, no matter whether under a revisionist or establishment framework. This means that the smell or presence of some corpses at these camps does not count as evidence for the 'Holocaust', which is distinguished by its activities (gassing) and scale (millions).

I do hope you find time to circle back to those red-highlighted elements above which you have evaded (or simply forgotten to address).

[TlsMS93]

Smell alone won't prove the existence of hundreds of thousands of corpses. What proves it is the quantity of ashes sufficient to establish not a theoretical total, but a magnitude sufficient to corroborate a mass murder. It's difficult to believe that hundreds of thousands died in a single period simply due to the circumstantial conditions of a camp with inadequate infrastructure.

[pilgrimofdark]

- Recommends Spaces of Treblinka (Flaws, 2024, Ch. 5: Sensory Space) as starting point; also in Belzec literature and local context studies.

I'll quickly address Jacob Flaws's book Spaces of Treblinka, having read it in December. Flaws refrains from using insults in his book, which is nice. He certainly doesn't use insults like "midiwt" repeatedly that were coined by someone the mainstream labels a "far right white supremacist alt-right misogynist racist anti-semite."

So we can't say that he's engaged in "white supremacist scientific racist antisemitic misogynist associated rhetoric," like we can with others who violate forum rules against insulting others' intelligence.

However, Flaws fails the "Zabecki Bibliographical Test."

He lists Zabecki's memoirs in his bibliography, yet repeatedly refers to Zabecki as stationmaster of Treblinka (wrong), and attributes Zygmunt Wierzbowski's photograph to Zabecki himself (wrong).

It's almost like he never read Zabecki's book but put it in his bibliography anyway, or he has major reading comprehension issues.

He also puts a map of Malkinia upside down, indicating Treblinka was north of Malkinia. Even worse, the aerial photo he displays crops out the actual rail line going south. For a book about "Spaces," he should be able to differentiate north from south. He's as bad at it as the 1945 Polish surveyor, but with nearly 80 additional years of research available.

In his section on "smell" in the "A Sensory Space" chapter, he makes a few dozen citations. If he's as accurate with those as he is about Zabecki and Malkinia, it would be some work to check them for accuracy. Something an editor at University of Nebraska Press should have done before allowing the book to go to print, but we don't live in a utopia.

So if you choose to read Flaws's book, be aware it's in a pretty raw state, where he quotes sources that you can prove he hasn't read (correctly or at all?). You'll need to double-check every single one of his references, because he didn't.

But in case anyone wants a Treblinka "smelltrocity" / "odorvergence of scentvidence":

As Kazimierz Dudek, a Pole from Wolka Okraglik (1 km) imprisoned at Treblinka I described in ghastly detail, "Initially, their bodies were buried 10-15 deep and filled with lime and sand. After some time, these bodies erupted.... The gas from the decaying bodies threw a geyser of earth into the air, mixed with slime. It stank up the whole area."

p. 133 (Second paragraph of the "Smell" section of "A Sensory Space" chapter. Second nosewitness Flaws quotes in the section.)

Comments:

Initially, their bodies were buried 10-15 deep [how does he know this?] and filled with lime and sand [how does he know this?]. After some time, these bodies erupted [how does he know this?].... The gas from the decaying bodies [how does he know this?] threw a geyser of earth into the air [how does he know this?], mixed with slime [how does he know this?]. It stank up the whole area.

Summary: Kazimierz Dudek smelled something from somewhere while he was somewhere else and got hearsay that it was from small-scale self-exploding corpses.

edit: His primary citation for this is a collection of documents from 1988-1991 titled "The Treblinka Extermination Camp [program of events in Treblinka as part of the nationwide commemorations of the 40th anniversary of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, information brochures published by the Museum of Struggle and Martyrdom in Treblinka]." It consists of "33 cards."

He also references the 2011 book Dam Im Imie na Wieki, pages 366 & 384. Dudek's name does not appear on those pages, in the index, nor in a text search.

[Callafangers]

Summary: Kazimierz Dudek smelled something from somewhere while he was somewhere else and got hearsay that it was from small-scale self-exploding corpses.

Just as shocking is that Dr. Flaws considers this a very important witness, not only making his 'Best Of Treblinka' list, but nearing the top (second on the list, as you mention).

[Stubble]

You know, Dr Flaws, this reminds me of a saying I can't quite remember about 'it all' being 'in the name'.

It fills me with a sense of irony that this fellow couldn't even get basic facts about someone he sources his book from right.

[pilgrimofdark]

Summary: Kazimierz Dudek smelled something from somewhere while he was somewhere else and got hearsay that it was from small-scale self-exploding corpses.

Just as shocking is that Dr. Flaws considers this a very important witness, not only making his 'Best Of Treblinka' list, but nearing the top (second on the list, as you mention).

The first nosewitness Flaws quotes is Lucjan Puchala's testimony from here.

This is the part he quotes.

pits full of corpses covered only with earth opened up as a result of decomposition of the corpses, and there was a horrible stench.

Flaws leaves out the next sentence in that paragraph:

Then, the transports were put on hold for about two weeks and during that time the top surface of the pits was cemented.

Puchala claims this isn't just hearsay:

Working in the gravel pit, I was able to observe the area of the camp from the top of a mound.

This was Puchala's third (at least) testimony, including two with the Soviets in August and September 1944. Flaws doesn't mention these, but neither does Puchala mention any pits or smells or cementing.

I'll stop, as this is a bit off topic. Sensory perception doesn't really count as physical evidence without more analysis.

Flaws's book is not without value, but you'll have to check his sources for accuracy.