Why does SanityCheck evade the Physical Evidence Question?

[Stubble]

I've downloaded the entire set and have them on an external. My copy of Adobe tells me that it can't search them because they are image files.

Maybe update Acrobat? My copy is searching them fine.

Fresh install. The correct answer may be 'pay for acrobat'.

[SanityCheck]

Again: your archaeology department involvement is shocking -- you evade precision while claiming expertise. Tsk tsk.

Uh wut? My university merged my history department with the archaeology department. That means more contact with archaeologists.

I was familiar before this merger three years ago with archaeological studies and historical studies emphasising landscapes, physical evidence and investigating death and body disposal. I can synthesise a good deal of this - work by historians, discussing cremation in historical circumstances away from WWII Europe, among other things - as a historian. That's 'expertise' of a sort, but no different to my having read a lot of legal literature for obvious reasons. IANAL, as they say; IANAA, not claiming to be. But neither is anyone on your side.

Aktion 1005 is Soviet hearsay (no explicit/contemporary documents, improbable logistics, zero unearthed graves at scale at German sites), so no surprise you rely on it so heavily. Your "networks" of this kind bloat unproven claims.

No, it's not.
1. dozens of contemporary German documents referencing Sonderkommando 1005, in connection also with known cremation sites, also referencing escaped prisoners smelling distinctly of corpse. No explanation for what 1005 was provided by Mattogno or any other revisionist.
2. dozens of contemporary Polish and Soviet underground and partisan reports, as well as fugitive accounts before liberation of escapees from 1005 detachments, noting the pattern of cremation sites
3. 'zero unearthed graves at scale at German sites' - flatly false, the Soviet and Polish war crimes commissions identified grave sites which had been exhumed and remains cremated, in contrast to identifying other grave sites which had not been targeted by 1005 and which contained corpses.
4. the sites in question are for the USSR very well documented in German records for the killings in 1941-42. Many of these sites also have population registration reports or registers immediately prior to killing actions, doubling up the sources (e.g. Bobruisk, Brest-Litovsk, Pinsk, Riga and others). Some of these actions were also noted by the Polish underground, which further refutes the 'Soviet hearsay' bullshit.
5. the sites in Poland include places of execution of non-Jews as well as Jews; documentation from the Germans is more variable, but for Erntefest includes some hard-to-explain documents noting the withdrawal of workforces who don't show up elsewhere, and the Polish underground provides detailed reportage of the killings and then reported on the exhumations and cremations, which could also be noted by other observers (diarists).
6. postwar investigations and interrogations identified the 1005 operation fairly quickly in the 1940s, later 1960s investigations harvested extensive accounts of service in 1005 units. Perimeter guards had little reason to deny this when they were not necessarily involved in killings (what would they be charged with?). Other Germans observed the cremations as well, knew about them, and together these accounts provide lots more detail on how cremations might be carried out, where fuel was sourced from, etc.

Considering the majority of mass graves in the occupied Soviet Union weren't targeted by 1005, especially in provincial areas away from the larger towns where the Germans began their quixotic attempt to cover up their crimes, there's already a problem with fussing over 1005. You might desire to deny all mass killings of Jews everywhere, but cannot point to either the camps or 1005 as a one neat trick for doing so, there were extensive mass graves left. So the goalposts move for you, and no doubt you can come up with excuses for why the other mass graves aren't acceptable evidence, even if this means insisting on a level of documentation that will be absent for equivalent mass killings in the modern era, before the rare exceptions like Srebrenica. But there are Srebrenica deniers, so the 'scientific' pose looks pretty threadbare when anything can be denied, if a partisan so chooses.

Then there's the problem for you of the documented prior presence of Jews in the towns, counties and regions targeted by deportations and mass shootings. The usual revisionist trick of claiming transfer or resettlement becomes even more ludicrous when we add in the documented Jews in the occupied Soviet territories. You might want to claim the Jews of Brest-Litovsk weren't killed in October 1942, that the documents we have about this action were faked, that all witnesses were lying, that the Polish underground made it up (but somehow despite the Polish-Soviet split communicated this to the Soviets), and maybe even that the claim of a 1005 cremation at Bronnaia Gora proves this. Which wouldn't solve the problem of explaining where the Jews of Brest-Litovsk, and indeed the 330,000 Jews of the Wolhynien region, were sent. Or the problem of showing with evidence that all the documents about the presence of Jews in the region, the local reports counting them in Brest, Pinsk, Rivne, Lutsk, and other towns in 1942, were faked, then arguing that all of the Jews in this region somehow were spirited away at some point - a claim requiring evidence.

Assignment:

You first, quantify where Jews were under German occupation in Eastern Europe for the end of 1942. That precedes systematic cremation at Treblinka, that's why you go first.

Stop evading historical reconstruction and historical explanation.

[SanityCheck]

I've downloaded the entire set and have them on an external. My copy of Adobe tells me that it can't search them because they are image files.

Maybe update Acrobat? My copy is searching them fine.

Fresh install. The correct answer may be 'pay for acrobat'.

It shouldn't be, my laptop was new in December and added a free version of Acrobat then.

[Stubble]

Maybe update Acrobat? My copy is searching them fine.

Fresh install. The correct answer may be 'pay for acrobat'.

It shouldn't be, my laptop was new in December and added a free version of Acrobat then.

I'll be damned, now working, ish. Thank you!

Update: after going through stuff again using search and trying to track it down, I am going to just retract. There are entirely too many rabbit trails in here and I can in no way stay focused on the prize Sir.

When I do finally run across it again, I will make a thread with a proper citation. I will also included the congressional testimony in the OP of that thread.

For now though, I retract.

[Callafangers]

Uh wut? My university merged my history department with the archaeology department. That means more contact with archaeologists.

I was familiar before this merger three years ago with archaeological studies and historical studies emphasising landscapes, physical evidence and investigating death and body disposal. I can synthesise a good deal of this - work by historians, discussing cremation in historical circumstances away from WWII Europe, among other things - as a historian. That's 'expertise' of a sort, but no different to my having read a lot of legal literature for obvious reasons. IANAL, as they say; IANAA, not claiming to be. But neither is anyone on your side.

Can we expect anything of this merger, insofar as precision of scale of corpse remains at AR camps? Will your colleagues in the archaeology department find no issue with your comfort in lack of precision exhibited throughout this thread?

1. dozens of contemporary German documents referencing Sonderkommando 1005, in connection also with known cremation sites, also referencing escaped prisoners smelling distinctly of corpse. No explanation for what 1005 was provided by Mattogno or any other revisionist.

Revisionists note that only a handful of documents exist mentioning SK 1005 (not "dozens"), and none specify exhumation/cremation tasks or connect it to "known cremation sites." They are late (mostly 1944), vague ("special tasks"), and lack detail on purpose or scale. Escaped prisoners "smelling of corpse" is presumably a late postwar claim, not contemporary, nor is it necessarily any indication of genocidal cover-up (as opposed to sanitation, etc.).

• "The documents analyzed here show that there was a Sonderkommando 1005, also referred to with the letters 'A' and 'B,' which was a 'Secret Reich Matter' and which corresponded to a 'special order of the Reichsführer SS'; one might also concede that it involved an 'assignment RFSS to SS Standartenführer Blobel,' but none of this provides us with any knowledge of the fundamental questions:
  1. When was it formed?
  2. Why was it formed?
  3. What were its duties?
  4. Why was it referred to by the number '1005'?" (Mattogno, p. 457)
• "A document cannot be confirmed by a testimony; if anything, then the exact opposite is true." (Mattogno, p. 453)

No revisionist denies SK 1005 existed at all; they challenge the orthodox link to cremations, as docs prove nothing beyond "special tasks" (e.g., anti-partisan; "Operation Zeppelin", p. 460).

2. dozens of contemporary Polish and Soviet underground and partisan reports, as well as fugitive accounts before liberation of escapees from 1005 detachments, noting the pattern of cremation sites

What this refers to is wartime propaganda, lacking forensic corroboration and contradicted by discrepancies (e.g., exaggerated victim numbers, absurd techniques). No pre-liberation reports detail SK 1005 cremations; postwar claims are coerced/invented.

• "The Soviet manipulations are well illustrated by the case of Ozarichi. [...] The fatality figures adopted by the Soviet reports are very discordant and range from 8,000 to 49,000 [...] Undoubtedly, the photographic documentation was a bit scant when it comes to materially documenting the deaths of 8,000-49,000 people" (Mattogno, pp. 425-427, on Soviet exaggeration via manipulated photos/reports).
• "The institution of the Soviet war crimes commissions was strictly propagandistic in intent [...] The case of Katyn is typical in this regard." (Mattogno, p. 423)

Regarding Polish underground reports, the pattern of alignment with Soviet atrocity narratives is confirmed far beyond just 'Aktion 1005'. And Polish underground reports (e.g., Biuletyn Informacyjny) mention no systematic cremations matching orthodox claims (e.g. Mattogno, p. 558: "no reports from any partisan unit, no citizen of Kiev ever wrote a diary entry or took a photograph of the smoke [at Babi Yar]").

3. 'zero unearthed graves at scale at German sites' - flatly false, the Soviet and Polish war crimes commissions identified grave sites which had been exhumed and remains cremated, in contrast to identifying other grave sites which had not been targeted by 1005 and which contained corpses.

Revisionists argue Soviets claimed vast numbers but exhumed tiny fractions (e.g., Kharkov: 15,000 claimed, ~500 exhumed; Ponary: 100,000 claimed, 515 exhumed), often without photos/forensics. "Unearthed" sites show no cremation evidence at claimed scales; untouched graves (e.g., Katyn) prove Soviet manipulation.

• "The case of Katyn is typical [of propagandistic Soviet war crimes commissions] [...] The Extraordinary State Commission collected numerous and at times slightly contradictory statements regarding the massacre of the Jews in occupied Smolensk" (Mattogno, pp. 408).
• "Orthodox Holocaust historiography treats the topic of mass graves by constantly pointing out, with extremely rare exceptions which will be examined later, the findings of the investigations of the various Soviet investigation commissions" (Mattogno, p. 404; notes their exaggeration/inaccuracy).

Soviets found small graves (hundreds, not tens of thousands) with intact bodies, contradicting cremation claims (Mattogno, p 651: "549 bodies were exhumed [...] 549 (presumably) real bodies as against 116,600 claimed ones").

4. the sites in question are for the USSR very well documented in German records for the killings in 1941-42. Many of these sites also have population registration reports or registers immediately prior to killing actions, doubling up the sources (e.g. Bobruisk, Brest-Litovsk, Pinsk, Riga and others). Some of these actions were also noted by the Polish underground, which further refutes the 'Soviet hearsay' bullshit.

Revisionists concede some documented killings (e.g., Bobruisk: 5,281), but note:

(a) figures often exaggerated/repeated without verification;
(b) population reports don't prove killings (many fled/evacuated);
(c) no docs mandate cremations;
(d) underground reports are hearsay, no forensics.

• "Orthodox Holocaust historiography has never proven that the authorities of the Reich planned and carried out a general plan on an institutional level to eliminate the bodies of the victims of the Einsatzgruppen [...] by means of a systematic operation of exhumation and cremation of bodies." (Mattogno, p. 757)
• "There is such an immense disproportion between the execution figures proclaimed in the various German reports and the corpses actually found that one can reasonably consider the proclaimed death toll to be greatly exaggerated." (Mattogno, p. 758)

Bobruisk: EM No. 148 lists 5,281, but no population register confirms; Soviet map shows small graves (Mattogno, p. 741: "the Yad Vashem photo archive [...] depicts victims of the POW camp"). Brest/Pinsk/Riga: Discrepancies between docs/photos (minimal numbers exhumed).

5. the sites in Poland include places of execution of non-Jews as well as Jews; documentation from the Germans is more variable, but for Erntefest includes some hard-to-explain documents noting the withdrawal of workforces who don't show up elsewhere, and the Polish underground provides detailed reportage of the killings and then reported on the exhumations and cremations, which could also be noted by other observers (diarists).

Erntefest documents are vague (no cremation specifics); underground reports amount to hearsay without forensics; no diarists confirm massive cremations; workforces were plausibly reassigned (anti-partisan).

• "The motivation, suggested by Desbois and declared true by Weliczker, for the fact that the 'death brigade' slept in tents, was presumably to keep them from seeing the killings of the Jews [...] This is contradicted by the book itself" (Mattogno, p. 513; on absurd claims).

Erntefest: No docs prove 1005 link; witnesses absurd (e.g., pyres 7m high; Mattogno, p. 685).

6. postwar investigations and interrogations identified the 1005 operation fairly quickly in the 1940s, later 1960s investigations harvested extensive accounts of service in 1005 units. Perimeter guards had little reason to deny this when they were not necessarily involved in killings (what would they be charged with?). Other Germans observed the cremations as well, knew about them, and together these accounts provide lots more detail on how cremations might be carried out, where fuel was sourced from, etc.

Revisionists: 1940s "identification" via coerced Soviet interrogations (NKGB); 1960s testimonies late (20+ yrs), contradictory/absurd (e.g., 1000-body pyres in 10min). Guards/perimeter observers had every reason to lie under duress. "Details" ignore physics/logistics (wood needs, pyre stability).

• Testimonies are late, contradictory, absurd; from coerced environments: "The series of miracles allowing Weliczker to survive [includes six escapes] had its final highlight" (Mattogno, p. 511; on witness absurdity).
• Major contradictions discussed here: https://holocaustencyclopedia.com/instr ... -1005/375/

Fuel/wood: Ignored by witnesses; impossible quantities (Mattogno, p. 555: "17,500 t ÷ 207.9 t/day = some 84 days").

Considering the majority of mass graves in the occupied Soviet Union weren't targeted by 1005, especially in provincial areas away from the larger towns where the Germans began their quixotic attempt to cover up their crimes, there's already a problem with fussing over 1005. You might desire to deny all mass killings of Jews everywhere, but cannot point to either the camps or 1005 as a one neat trick for doing so, there were extensive mass graves left. So the goalposts move for you, and no doubt you can come up with excuses for why the other mass graves aren't acceptable evidence, even if this means insisting on a level of documentation that will be absent for equivalent mass killings in the modern era, before the rare exceptions like Srebrenica. But there are Srebrenica deniers, so the 'scientific' pose looks pretty threadbare when anything can be denied, if a partisan so chooses.

Let's set aside the fallacy regarding Srebrenica; you run into the same issue of lacking evidence of scale here as you polish your turd. Yes, there were mass graves. Yes, many of them filled with Jews (during WW2, with Jews as key combatants and deeply involved as partisans). This doesn't substantiate your 'Holocaust' narrative of German insane barbarity, and not by a long shot. You sit firmly in defeat on all questions of physical evidence, even outside the camps.

Bottom-line: the "majority of untouched mass graves" claim crumbles under scrutiny, as Soviet commissions routinely exaggerated victim numbers while exhuming tiny fractions (e.g., Ponary: 100,000 claimed vs. 515 bodies; Kharkov: 15,000 vs. ~500), with post-1991 forensics confirming only small-scale graves inconsistent with Einsatzgruppen tallies of millions -- "There is such an immense disproportion between the execution figures proclaimed in the various German reports and the corpses actually found that one can reasonably consider the proclaimed death toll to be greatly exaggerated" (Mattogno, p. 758).

Then there's the problem for you of the documented prior presence of Jews in the towns, counties and regions targeted by deportations and mass shootings. The usual revisionist trick of claiming transfer or resettlement becomes even more ludicrous when we add in the documented Jews in the occupied Soviet territories. You might want to claim the Jews of Brest-Litovsk weren't killed in October 1942, that the documents we have about this action were faked, that all witnesses were lying, that the Polish underground made it up (but somehow despite the Polish-Soviet split communicated this to the Soviets), and maybe even that the claim of a 1005 cremation at Bronnaia Gora proves this. Which wouldn't solve the problem of explaining where the Jews of Brest-Litovsk, and indeed the 330,000 Jews of the Wolhynien region, were sent. Or the problem of showing with evidence that all the documents about the presence of Jews in the region, the local reports counting them in Brest, Pinsk, Rivne, Lutsk, and other towns in 1942, were faked, then arguing that all of the Jews in this region somehow were spirited away at some point - a claim requiring evidence.

Jewish demographics allow for evacuation/flight east (e.g., 330,000 Volhynian Jews: pre-war censuses show fluid populations, Soviet evacuations documented; Brest-Litovsk: no mass grave forensics match 30,000+ claims, Polish underground hearsay uncorroborated). Revisionists demand basics like bodies/ash at scale (absent even at Srebrenica-equivalents), not "modern documentation," as EM reports themselves are inflated without graves: "Orthodox Holocaust historiography has never proven... a systematic operation of exhumation and cremation of bodies" (Mattogno, p. 757).
Transfers are evidenced by rail manifests/ghetto inflows, documented Final Solution policy, and patterns of eastbound transit -- not requiring "spiriting away" fantasies.

Assignment:

You first, quantify where Jews were under German occupation in Eastern Europe for the end of 1942. That precedes systematic cremation at Treblinka, that's why you go first.

Wrong. The historical question is: what happened to the Jews of Europe, with the default answer being "we don't know". You claim, "they were murdered". This is why you necessarily go first, no matter how unfortunate and clear it becomes that your physical evidence case is (and always has been) DOA.