Belzec: a fraudulent excavation

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3293
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Postby Hektor » 1 decade 2 months ago (Sun Mar 15, 2009 7:55 am)

Hannover wrote:...
- Kurt Gerstein is cited as an important provider of evidence, as is Chaim Hirszman, and Rudolf Reder....Gerstein has been shown to have made SIX different, highly conflicting 'confessions' with scientific impossibilities and absurdities galore, they don't mention that...the others do no better
...
There is sometimes reported that Reder is the only survivor/eyewitness. Does anyone know what is the origin of that claim?

Laurentz Dahl
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 981
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2005 8:00 am
Location: Somewhere in Europe

Re: Belzec: a fraudulent excavation

Postby Laurentz Dahl » 9 years 10 months ago (Thu Jun 25, 2009 3:39 pm)

It may interest readers of this topic to know that an English language translation of Mattogno's 2009 rebuttal to Roberto Muehlenkamp concerning Belzec is now available online at CODOH:

http://www.codoh.com/gcgv/gcgvhcrm.html

User avatar
Zulu
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 450
Joined: Mon May 11, 2009 9:44 am

Re: Belzec: a fraudulent excavation

Postby Zulu » 9 years 10 months ago (Mon Jul 06, 2009 2:53 pm)

Hannover wrote:This is a follow up to: 'Belzec: a fraudulent excavation', see link at bottom.

Some assertions made in this 'report':

- gassed Jews were later exhumed and cremated at the rate of 2,000 per day....but no physical evidence exists to support that assertion, those Germans soldiers were magicians I suppose

- only one Jew survived, Chaim Herszman, the other 299 of the final labor crew used for removing all the traces were sent to Sobibor and shot on arrival....no evidence for that given, a mere assertion, typical

- Hannover


Only the "gassing tales" are assumed nowadays for Belzec camp. Nevertheless, other important "eyewitnesses testimonies" which constituted "evidences" exhibited by the Russian prosecutor at Nuremberg and other sources told about "special electrical appliance" or "electrified floor" as way of "mass extermination" there.

Please, don't ask why one part only of the tales remained "approved" to sustain the hoax nowadays as well as why, by whom and based on which documents the hidden "electrical" part has been discarded by the official discourse.

Belzec and the hoax of the "electrical extermination"

<IMT Nuremberg>
"The report of the Polish Government on the measures against the Jewish
population is published in full in the English press. A passage reads, 'In the
town of Vilna 50,000 Jews were murdered, in Rovno 14,000; in Lvov half of the
total Jewish population.'

"Many details are also given about the use of poison gas, as at Chelm, of
electricity in Belzec, of the deportations from Warsaw, the surrounding of
blocks of houses, and of the attacks with machine guns."

</IMT Nuremberg>

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/04-29-46.htm

<IMT Nuremberg>
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV:

.../

I beg to draw the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that at the end of 1941 and
in 1942 the scale of German fascist crimes committed in concentration camps reached
vast proportions. In particular, I refer to the report of the Polish Government in
confirmation of this statement. On Page 138 of the document book the members of the
Tribunal will find the testimony to the effect that in 1942 one of the most
terrifying extermination camps, the Treblinka Camp Number 2, was in rapid process of
erection. The Germans called this "Treblinka B." Further, I refer to the report of
the extraordinary State Commission on Auschwitz. The members of the Tribunal will
find the extract which I am going to quote on Page 353 in the document book, Volume
II, second column of the text, Paragraph 2. I quote a short excerpt from Page 257:

"In 1941 the first crematorium for burning the corpses of murdered people was built
in the Auschwitz Camp. This crematorium had three ovens. Attached to the crematorium
was a so-called 'special purpose bath-house.' That was a gas chamber for asphyxiating
people."

I draw the attention of the Tribunal to the following sentence:
"In the summer of 1942 the Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler inspected Auschwitz Camp and
ordered it to be greatly enlarged and technically perfected."


I end my quotation here, and I call the attention of the Tribunal to Page 136 on the
reverse side of the document book; this is from a report of the Polish Government,
which shows that the Camp Sobibur was founded during the first and second liquidation
of the Jewish ghetto. But the extermination on a large scale in this camp really
started at the beginning of 1943. In this same report, in the last paragraph on Page
136 of the document book, we may read that Camp Belsen [Belzec] was founded in 1940;
but it was in 1942 that the special electrical appliances were built in for mass
extermination of people. Under the pretext that the people were being led to the

576

19 Feb. 46

bath-house, the doomed were undressed and then driven to the building where the floor
was electrified in a special way; there they were killed.

</IMT Nuremberg>

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/02-19-46.htm

"The Belzec camp is built underground. It is an electric
crematorium. There are two halls in the underground
buildings. People were taken out of the railway cars
into the first hall. Then they were led naked to the second
hall. Here the floor resembled an enormous plate. When
the crowd of men stood on it, the floor sank into a pool of
water. The moment the men sank up to their necks, a powerful
electric current of millions of volts passed through, killing
them all at once. The floor rose again, and a second
electric current was passed through the bodies, burning
them until nothing was left of the victims save a few ashes."


The Black Book (p 388-9) Underwritten by: World Jewish Congress
Jewish Antifascist Committee. 1985 Edition.

Drew J
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 249
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 12:13 am

Re: Belzec: a fraudulent excavation

Postby Drew J » 9 years 10 months ago (Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:06 pm)

Finally got my password working. Nice to be logged in. I have read a lot on this board and used plenty of material to argue and refute the gas chamber six million number mongers. Especially when it comes to the diesel engine nonsense and Burg's exposure of Nizkor's fudging of stats and straw men.

Now Belzec, I just started looking into. I found that Mattogno wrote a book about it based on some 'facts' alleged by a Polish study authored by Kola. I also found that someone in the blogspot.com world took issue with Mattogno's book on Belzec and decided to write a blog countering Mattogno back in 2006. His name is Roberto Muehlenkamp.
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... elzec.html

And in this topic, the English translation of Mattogno's 2009 response finally came up.
http://www.codoh.com/gcgv/gcgvhcrm.html

However, almost immediatly, in May 2009, Roberto Muehlenkamp had another response.
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... gy-my.html
In this one, he says he knows Spanish and Portugese and thus can navigate through the Italian. He also says amongst other things, that he is unaware of an English translation. Well there is one now. Since his friends in the right hand column of his blog include codoh.com watch and contributors include Andrew Mathis, both of whom do read this site and write against this site, sooner or later, they will see this topic and that an English version is available.

To give you a taste of what this new, unresponded to as of yet, 2009 response by Roberto Muehlenkamp, let me quote part one for you.
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... gy-my.html
It starts off saying that Mattogno still can't get it correct about what the real scope of the excavation-memorial was. Muehlenkamp also says that Mattogno's argument about a memorial only being constructed in part of the camp is wrong since Mattogno is unaware that it was declared that THE WHOLE CAMP would have to be a memorial and therefore Mattogno's argument

"When building a structure inside an area of archeological importance, one conducts a survey of the soil at the projected construction site, not an examination of the entire area."

falls to the ground. I will let you read the rest of part one of Muehlenkamp's 2009 response to Mattagno's 2009 response yourself. I say let's all team up and tackle this bit by bit. Bounce ideas around with each other on this forum. It would certainly take Mattogno a while since he's writing so many books and since it took him three years to respond to Muehlenkamp in the first place.


Sunday, May 24, 2009
Belzec Mass Graves and Archaeology: My Response to Carlo Mattogno (1)
Introduction

About three years ago I finished publishing on this blogspot a critique[1] of Carlo Mattogno’s discussion[2] of Prof. Andrzej Kola’s archaeological finds about the mass graves on the site of former Belzec extermination camp[3]. In this critique I exposed the falsehood and ill-reasoning that pervades Mattogno’s analysis, with special focus on his contentions about the technical/logistical feasibility of mass burial and cremation and the alleged incompatibility of Prof. Kola’s finds with the historical evidence whereby hundreds of thousands of Jewish deportees were murdered at Belzec[4]. I also addressed the fallacy of Mattogno’s claims about the nature and function of the Belzec camp[5].

Read more!

Mattogno’s response to this critique took a long time in coming. It was only in January 2009 that what Mattogno claims to be a paragraph-by-paragraph "examination" of my 2006 article was published on a "Revisionist" website[6]. This response consists of 63 pages of text and ten pages of documents, amazingly long for a response by one of the leading "scholars" of "Revisionism" to who he refers to as a nobody he had never heard of before ("un tale Roberto Muehlenkamp", i.e. "a certain Roberto Muehlenkamp"[7]). It is written in Italian, and as far as I know an English translation is not yet available. Italian is not a language I speak, but due to my fluency in Spanish and Portuguese I understand enough of it to follow Mattogno's argumentation, without this precluding the possibility of misunderstandings that, if present, I shall be glad to correct when an English translation of Mattogno's response becomes available. In the meantime such eventual misunderstandings should not be decried as misrepresentations, an exercise that I – unlike many a "Revisionist" writer including Mattogno himself – don’t indulge in. I have of course not bothered to obtain a translation into English, as this is Mattogno’s job.

That said, I proceed to commenting Mattogno’s response, in the same order in which he responded to the various parts and sections of my original blog.

1. Nature and Purpose of Kola’s Archaeological Investigation[8]

In Part 1 of the original blog[9], I addressed Mattogno’s misrepresentation of the nature and purpose of Prof. Kola’s archaeological investigation. I pointed out that Mattogno had failed to mention the stated purpose of that investigation (identifying the parts of the former camp area which contain human remains, so that these would not be disturbed when building the memorial), and ignored the ethically/religiously motivated constraints under which the archaeologists headed by Prof. Kola were working as concerns disturbance of human remains, when postulating that the investigation was meant "to furnish the 'material proof' of the alleged extermination at Belzec"[10] and derisively pointing out alleged deficiencies of this investigation, especially the fact that the corpses were not exhumed[11].

In his response, Mattogno starts by pointing out that he did mention the official" purpose of Prof. Kola’s investigation in the original Italian version of his Belzec book – a matter he should take up with his translator, who failed to include that mention in the English translation that was the subject of my analysis.

He then proceeds to arguing that the "official" purpose was mere window-dressing for the actual purpose, which was to try finding physical proof of the mass murder at Belzec, the "official" purpose having the function of providing an alibi in case the investigation did not yield the desired results. The reasoning behind this conspiracy theory is that if a building (i.e. the presumed memorial building) is to be constructed in an archaeological area, it is not necessary to do a survey of the whole area, but a survey of the part of that area meant for construction is sufficient ("Se si deve costruire una struttura edilizia in un’area archeologica, non si eseguono sondaggi nell’intera aerea, ma soltanto nel sito scelto per la costruzione").

Mattogno’s reasoning might be pertinent if indeed it had been planned to erect a memorial building somewhere in the area of former Belzec extermination camp. That this was not so, however, becomes apparent from the foreword of Prof. Kola's book – which Mattogno obviously read, which is quoted in Part 1 of the original blog, and where the following is stated[12](emphases added):

In 1997, the jurors of the competition for the Belzec memorial selected the work proposed by a team of artists led by Andrzej Solyga. In the selected project, the entire area of the camp becomes the memorial. The artists are of the opinion that the most appropriate way of commemorating the victims is to honour the earth that harbours their ashes.


So the memorial was to cover the entire former camp area, rather than be restricted to a building somewhere on that area, which means that identifying the parts of that area containing human remains in order to avoid their disturbance when building the memorial was a pertinent purpose, and that Mattogno’s objection is moot.

How could Mattogno have failed to notice the above-quoted statement about what the memorial was to be like, i.e. that it was to cover the entire camp area?

If he noticed it and dismissed it as another "official" lie, he should at least have made himself familiar with what the Belzec memorial actually looks like. He would have needed to go no further than some sources readily available online to realize that, indeed, the memorial covers all, or almost all, of the former Belzec extermination camp site[13]. In fact, a later statement in his response suggests that he is well aware of this fact, as he laments that checking the data from Prof. Kola’s investigation has become impossible because a communication trench of reinforced concrete crosses the camp in its length and the surface of the camp has been covered by large stones ("Una camminamento a mo' di trincea di cemento armato attraversa il campo nella sua lunghezza e la superficie del campo è stata ricoperta di grosse pietre, sicché ormai qualunque verifica dei dati addotti da Kola è diventata impossibile")[14]. In other words, Mattogno is arguing against his own better knowledge when he claims that the nature of the memorial would not have required searching the whole camp area for mass graves. Right at the beginning of his response, Mattogno has thus again shown his dishonesty.

Transforming himself into an expert on Jewish religious matters, Mattogno then claims that the religious/ethical considerations of respect for the peace of the dead underlying the "official" reason for Prof. Kola's investigation are also phony. He quotes a description by Simon Wiesenthal of a ritual burial in a Romanian village of soap found in a German army depot, falsely believed to have been made of Jews murdered by the Nazis, and refers to a 1973 study about habits and customs of Orthodox Jews whereby it is desirable for Jews to be buried in Israeli land, and where this is not possible some soil of Israel is placed on the head or the body of Jews buried in the Diaspora. From this Mattogno concludes that it would make more sense, from the point of view of Jewish religious beliefs, to exhume the corpses in wax-fat transformation buried in the Belzec mass graves and rebury them according to Jewish rites.

With all due disrespect for Mattogno’s conjectures about what would better correspond to Jewish religious tradition, the fact is that regarding the victims of the Nazi genocide of the Jews there are rulings of Orthodox courts whereby their remains should be left in peace. These rulings, which may have been related to the fact that exhuming and duly reburying the remains of millions interred throughout Eastern Europe was an impracticable task (especially while these countries were still behind the Iron Curtain) are mentioned as follows by Father Patrick Desbois [15](emphases added):

The Rabbi sat down slowly, silent and serious, and started to study the several handwritten documents in Yiddish on yellow and white paper that had been previously placed on the table. They were Rabbinical Court decisions that came from various Orthodox courts throughout the world regarding the laws and rules applicable to the bodies of Jews killed during the Holocaust. Picking up a yellow paper, Rabbi Schlesinger raised his eyes and explained to me in English that it had been ruled that the Jews assassinated by the Third Reich were tsadiqim, "saints", and that the plenitude of eternal life had been granted them. Because of this, their burial places, wherever situated – under a motorway or in a garden – should be left intact so as not to disturb their rest.
[…]
He repeated his explanation vigorously, while his disciples silently acquiesced by nodding their heads. […] I had been called to meet in this schul, as a Catholic priest and the representative of Christian religious tradition to examine the sensitive issue of the violation of the burial sites of the Jews killed in the Holocaust together with Orthodox Jewish legal experts, people determined to scrupulously respect the prescriptions emerging from the laws of Judaism.


At Belzec the determination mentioned by Father Desbois even led to a campaign conducted by Rabbi Avi Weiss of New York against the construction of the Belzec memorial. An article in which Rabbi Weiss furiously complained about what he considered a desecration of the dead through the memorial building and the archaeological investigations preceding it[16]] was quoted in Part 1 of the original blog, and it is indicative of the level of Mattogno’s "scholarship" that he doesn’t even bother to mention this article, which clearly contradicts his assumptions. Rabbi Weiss did not only write against the project, but also filed a petition aimed at halting the construction of the memorial[17]. On the other hand, the construction project was approved and supervised by the Orthodox rabbi serving Warsaw and Lodz following consultation with Rabbi Elyakim Schlesinger, the source cited by Desbois, who is "regarded as the foremost ultra-Orthodox authority on the preservation of Jewish cemeteries in Europe"[18]. Mattogno may forgive me preferring the opinion of such authority on the matter over the conjectures of a "Revisionist".

Mattogno sees "the most obvious and irrefutable proof" ("La prova più evidente e inconfutabile") of the supposed actual purpose of Professor Kola’s investigation in the latter’s book, which was published "without the least reference to the optimal location of the memorial" ("senza il minimo accenno alla localizzazione ottimale del memoriale"). As we have seen, the memorial covers and was meant to cover the whole camp area, so an "optimum location of the memorial" to be recommended in Prof. Kola’s book did not exist. Mattogno was obviously aware of this, so this faulty argument is a further consequence and demonstration of his intellectual dishonesty.

Another argument invoked by Mattogno is that, as I'm supposed to know ("Come Muehlenkamp sa bene"), "Holocaust propagandists" (he quotes an Italian publication called Il Manifesto, Italian author Roberto Sforni and Michael Tregenza) have referred to the results of Prof. Kola’s investigations as material proof of the mass extermination at Belzec. This argument is a non sequitur for anyone who does not believe – like Mattogno apparently does – that "Holocaust propagandists" belong to some monolithic conspiratorial entity. Outside "Revisionist" cloud-cuckoo-land whatever any "Holocaust propagandist" wrote about the significance of Prof. Kola's investigation results tells us nothing about the reason why this investigation was originally commissioned.

Further evidence of "the fallaciousness of the official motivation" ("La fallacia della motivazione ufficiale") is seen by Mattogno in the archaeological work done by Prof. Kola on the remains of former camp buildings. Mattogno quotes a passage from his book [19] in which he contrasts the fact that "actual diggings were undertaken to bring to light the original structures" with the approach taken as concerns the mass graves, and spins the amusing conspiracy theory that the latter approach was guided by concerns that excavation "risked too blatant a refutation of the thesis of mass extermination". Apparently it didn't occur to someone as eager as Mattogno to hear the grass grow that, unlike in the mass graves, disturbance of human remains may not have been expected to occur when excavating the structures of former camp buildings, and that this might be the reasonable explanation for the different archaeological treatment of one and the other.

Mattogno rhetorically asks why these excavations of former camp structures were undertaken if "the motivation of archaeological surveys was exclusively that of the memorial" ("Se la motivazione delle indagini archeologiche era esclusivamente quella del memoriale, a che scopo far disseppellire tutti i reperti archeologici trovati?"). Indeed the excavations in question seem to have resulted from a posterior "as we’re at it, let us also" – extension of Prof. Kola’s original task, as is suggested by the following passage of the latter’s book[20] (emphases mine):

The archaeological works at the Bełżec camp area taken up by The Council of Protection of Memory of Struggle and Martyrdom had originally the only aim to locate the mass graves by probing drills. The method, which in a minimum degree touched anthropogenic structures, enabled us to obtain the basic knowledge on the subject. Revealing the other structures, coming from the camp building, which traces were not visible on the surface, because of the complete decomposition during the camp closing 1943, opened a chance to widen the research programme. Archaeology could be helpful to reconstruct the camp building and establish the functions of located objects.


So it looks like Prof. Kola found traces of camp building structures during his probing drills aimed at identifying the mass graves, and that based on these finds his employers eventually became interested in widening the program of his investigations. In other words, identifying the mass grave areas within the context of building a memorial to cover the whole camp area was the sole purpose of Prof. Kola's work at the outset, but not at the end.

This doesn't validate Mattogno’s conjectures and insinuations, however. For independently of whether identifying the mass grave areas was Prof. Kola's only task or he was eventually also commissioned to attempt an archaeological reconstruction of the camp’s buildings, the archaeologist was bound by his employers' religiously motivated concerns about disturbing the dead to keep physical contact with human remains to the minimum indispensable for identifying the areas containing such remains, as I pointed out in Part 1 of the original blog.

Whether dishonest or simply based on faulty reasoning, Mattogno's arguments therefore fail to alter the conclusions expressed in my original blog. Mattogno deliberately misrepresented the nature and purpose of the archaeological investigation carried out by Prof. Kola in order to spin "Revisionist" conspiracy theories around supposed omissions of this investigation, unduly claimed on the basis of said misrepresentation.

Notes

[1] Carlo Mattogno on Belzec Archaeological Research (hereinafter the "original blog").

[2] Carlo Mattogno, Belzec in Propaganda, Testimonies, Archaeological Research, and History (hereinafter "Mattogno, Belzec"), translated from Italian by Henry Gardner, 2004 Chicago (Illinois): Theses and Dissertation Press, pages 71 to 92. A digital copy of the book is available for free download [large PDF].

[3] Andrzej Kola, Belzec. The Nazi Camp for Jews in the Light of Archaeological Sources. Excavations 1997-1999 (hereinafter "Kola, Belzec"), translated from Polish by Ewa Józefowicz and Mateusz Józefowicz, published in 2000 by The Council for the Protection of Memory of Combat and Martyrdom and the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Warsaw-Washington, pages 5 to 39 and page 70.

[4] See Parts 4(1), 4 (2), 4(3) and 4(4) of the original blog.

[5] See Part 5 of the original blog.

[6] Carlo Mattogno, BEŁŻEC E LE CONTROVERSIE OLOCAUSTICHE DI ROBERTO MUEHLENKAMP (hereinafter "Controversie").

[7] Controversie, page 1.

[8] Controversie, pages 1 to 4.

[9] Carlo Mattogno on Belzec Archaeological Research - Introduction and Part 1.

[10] Mattogno, Belzec, page 90.

[11] As above, page 77.

[12] Kola, Belzec, page 3.

[13] E.g. ARC Page "Belzec Memorial"; Scrapbookpages page "Belzec Death Camp"; Bonnie M. Harris, Holocaust Memorialization in Poland and the Czech Republic.

[14] Controversie, page 56.

[15] Father Patrick Desbois, The Holocaust by Bullets, translated by Catherine Spencer, 2008 Palgrave Macmillan, New York, pages 129/130.

[16] Avi Weiss, A Monumental Failure at Belzec.

[17] World Jewish Congress Global News, US court rejects suit against Belzec memorial.

[18] Alan Elsner, Unearthing the Horror of Belzec.

[19] Mattogno, Belzec, page 92.

[20] Kola, Belzec, page 69.


End of part one of Muehlenkamp's 2009 response to Mattogno's 2009 response.
Last edited by Drew J on Fri Jul 17, 2009 1:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

Drew J
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 249
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 12:13 am

Re: Belzec: a fraudulent excavation

Postby Drew J » 9 years 10 months ago (Thu Jul 09, 2009 8:37 pm)

He then proceeds to arguing that the "official" purpose was mere window-dressing for the actual purpose, which was to try finding physical proof of the mass murder at Belzec, the "official" purpose having the function of providing an alibi in case the investigation did not yield the desired results. The reasoning behind this conspiracy theory is that if a building (i.e. the presumed memorial building) is to be constructed in an archaeological area, it is not necessary to do a survey of the whole area, but a survey of the part of that area meant for construction is sufficient ("Se si deve costruire una struttura edilizia in un’area archeologica, non si eseguono sondaggi nell’intera aerea, ma soltanto nel sito scelto per la costruzione").

Mattogno’s reasoning might be pertinent if indeed it had been planned to erect a memorial building somewhere in the area of former Belzec extermination camp. That this was not so, however, becomes apparent from the foreword of Prof. Kola's book – which Mattogno obviously read, which is quoted in Part 1 of the original blog, and where the following is stated[12](emphases added):

In 1997, the jurors of the competition for the Belzec memorial selected the work proposed by a team of artists led by Andrzej Solyga. In the selected project, the entire area of the camp becomes the memorial. The artists are of the opinion that the most appropriate way of commemorating the victims is to honour the earth that harbours their ashes.

So the memorial was to cover the entire former camp area, rather than be restricted to a building somewhere on that area, which means that identifying the parts of that area containing human remains in order to avoid their disturbance when building the memorial was a pertinent purpose, and that Mattogno’s objection is moot.

I would say that Mattogno has been disproven here. His argument does not work. He should have known that the entire camp was designated as a memorial. However, designating the camp entirely as a memorial, means that digging would have been done not to disturb corpses according to the gas chamber mongers. Right? Okay, so would that not mean that if they didn't want to disturb corpses and do a lot of digging, doesn't that mean there was a conspiracy to prevent revisionists from checking things out by declaring the whole camp too sacred to touch?

Of course, the idea of limited digging was absurd since the extermination theorists would need to prove their case and so they changed their mind and allowed some extra digging to happen than they initially wanted and allowed Kola to write his report. Anyone with two brain cells can see there was a conspiracy plan to cover up Belzec but then the extermination theorists backed off trying to keep the corpses from being disturbed. Why? Because they didn't want to get busted and get caught with their pants down.

This is how Mattogno should have argued instead of arguing the ridiculous claim that basicall it is not necessary to do a survey of the whole area, but a survey of the part of that area meant for construction is sufficient since the whole camp was designated a memorial and he should have known that. But he didn't. But I have figured out what was really what and the behind the scenes backpeddling that was going on regarding the attempt to keep the graves from being disturbed. And the fact that Roberto Muehlenkamp refuses to acknowledge this initial back peddle on keeping corpses from being disturbed (which they obviously were given the subsequent digging done for Kola's report), shows HIS dishonesty. So it seems he's as devious and sneaky as he accuses Mattogno of being.

Roberto can't have it both ways. Either they were going to dig and look for corpses or they weren't. By digging for corpses, it doesn't matter if the intent was to find out where the remains are so as to protect them from being disturbed as Roberto claims was the only intent, and not the intent to disprove revisionists. By digging, you in effect open it up to revisionists. And when you do that, you can't claim special privileges from digging too much for religious reasons of not disturbing the graves. So I suspect that Mattogno was right in that there was a hidden agenda, but he got caught with his pants down when he made that foolish statement whereby saying the memorial wasn't going to be the entire camp, when it in fact was. So Mattogno seems to be correct about his conspiracy theory hunch, but for the wrong reasons. I think I have the right ones.

Agree? Disagree?

I will be posting futher comments as I go through Roberto Muehlenkamp's 2009 rejoinder to Mattogno's 2009 rejoinder. Feel free to jump in and also assist me incase I make some errors. I am obviously not as well versed in revisionism as others on this board, but I have read some of the stuff.
Last edited by Drew J on Fri Jul 17, 2009 1:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

Laurentz Dahl
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 981
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2005 8:00 am
Location: Somewhere in Europe

Re: Belzec: a fraudulent excavation

Postby Laurentz Dahl » 9 years 10 months ago (Mon Jul 13, 2009 1:59 pm)

Mattogno has in fact begun answering (in Italian) Muehlenkamp's reply to his rebuttal.

Part 1:

http://revisionismo.splinder.com/post/2 ... ERSIE+OLOC

Part 2:

http://revisionismo.splinder.com/post/2 ... ERSIE+OLOC

I suppose an English translation will appear sooner or later.

But surely The Amazing Muehlenkamp will try to "tackle" it before that.
I'm pretty sure he's is reading this by the way. Hello Bobby boy!

/your number one "fan"

Drew J
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 249
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 12:13 am

Re: Belzec: a fraudulent excavation

Postby Drew J » 9 years 10 months ago (Tue Jul 14, 2009 9:37 pm)

I can't wait to read it. I wonder what Mattogno will say.
Last edited by Drew J on Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Drew J
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 249
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 12:13 am

Re: Belzec: a fraudulent excavation

Postby Drew J » 9 years 10 months ago (Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:32 pm)

Okay, ladies and gentlemen, I am going to post part 2 of Roberto Muehlenkamp's 2009 rejoinder to Mattogno's 2009 response. When necessary I will inject pictures of my own and add my comments in between in parts of the blog where I have a response to Roberto.
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... my_30.html
Belzec Mass Graves and Archaeology: My Response to Carlo Mattogno (2)
(1) - Introduction and 1. Nature and Purpose of Kola’s Archaeological Investigation

2. Location and Form of the Mass Graves[21]

In Part 2 of the original blog[22], I discussed Mattogno’s claims about contradictions regarding the location of the mass graves between the maps of Prof. Kola’s finds[23] and postwar maps of the Belzec camp area, namely the map drawn by J. Bau on hand of descriptions provided by survivor eyewitness Rudolf Reder[24] and two maps drawn by the investigative commission of the German crimes in Poland[25], and about the supposed "random" scattering of the mass graves "all over the camp" and the "oddest" shapes of some of them. I also provided digital copies of the plans and sections of all 33 mass graves from Prof. Kola’s book.

It is at this point I would like to put up these photographs for you to see.

Here are kola's finds in footnote 23.
Image

Here is another image out of the kola book from the other belzec thread in this forum.
Image

Here is the map drawn by Bau based on the descriptions of survivor Reder.
Image
However, if we are to make it similar to the image above, we have to rotate it 90 degrees in a clockwise motion. So I will do that.

Image

And here are those two maps drawn by the German investigative team that Roberto is referring to.
Image

Continuing on with Roberto's article.


To my argument that "in what concerns the drawing by J. Bau there exists the possibility of a misunderstanding of Reder’s description, which may also not have been very clear and/or exact in this respect", Mattogno responds by pointing out that the drawing was expressly stated to be based on the account of Rudolf Reder (I suppose it was, but this does not affect my argument)


How can it not if you first say that Bau's drawing seen above may have been based on some misunderstanding and then admit that Mattogno could be correct in that there was no possibility of misunderstanding due to things being EXPRESSLEY STATED? Why are you saying two different things at the same time? Why don't you decide already Roberto?

and quoting two statements of Reder's about the number, size and capacity of the mass graves, which are rather exaggerated as concerns the second and consequently the third of these aspects.

Apart from not refuting my argument, he is thereby changing the subject, for his original argument – which was accordingly the subject of my comment – was not about the number and size but about the location of the mass graves. Mattogno had written the following[26](emphasis added):

In conclusion, we can see that the location given by Kola for the majority of the graves is in disagreement both with Rudolf Reder’s testimony and with the findings of the Polish investigative commission.


On top of this dishonest changing of the subject, Mattogno has the cheek of calling me dishonest for not having addressed in this context (i.e. in discussing his claims about diverging mass grave locations on various maps) the exaggeration of Reder's claims as concerns the mass graves' size. Why I should have bothered with size when discussing his claim regarding location he doesn't explain.

First you quote Mattogno saying that Kola's location for mass graves doesn't jive with Reder's testimony or the Polish investigators. That's claim two of his. But you say that because Mattogno also talked about size and capacity of the graves (claim one) BEFORE he got on to the location, that he is a self contradicting fool? Sorry Roberto but this argument does not fly. One can talk about the size of graves being mistaken, AND one can ALSO claim that the location is ALSO mistaken. Two completely different statements that don't logically contradict each other. They are simply different and distinct. So in other words, we have Mattogno saying that the size capacity as stated by the holocaust believers crowd is wrong, and he is also saying that the location of the graves, as believed by them, is wrong. Nothing contradictory here. Therefore, he's allowed to talk about more than one aspect of Belzec. He's allowed to 'change the subject' because the 'subject' isn't really being changed. The subject is the graves. He is staying on the subject and is questioning more than one aspect of this single subject.

Continuing on with Roberto's article.

What I might have done in the original blog is take a closer look at the "disagreement" claimed by Mattogno. For while he was obviously wrong about the size of the mass graves and (assuming the drawing was not an oversimplified rendering of Reder's description)


So now you just like to assume things, eh Roberto? Do you know what assume means, for example, in legalese? In a court of law? To take as a fact without supporting evidence. To grant as a part of reality without demonstration. Now you imply with your bracketed statement that Reder's description was oversimplified. We know that oversimplification of someone else's statement happens when you simply paraphrase and then inject something else into it, take away something else, or spin something in that statement to make it different from the original. Roberto, what is very strange is how you can possibly expect us to believe that Mattogno could possibly be a party to an oversimplificaton of a statement from Reder when Mattogno in his 2009 response to you, quotes Reder DIRECTLY WITH QUOATION MARKS.

In my study, I have cited two particularly illuminating statements by Reder relating to the map in question:

«In a declaration made before the Jewish historical commission in 1945, Reder stated:
“A grave was 100 m long and 25 m wide. A single grave contained about 100,000 persons. In November 1942 there were 30 graves, i.e. 3 million corpses.”
During the interrogation, which was conducted by the investigative judge Jan Sehn on December 29, 1945, the witness strengthened his declaration further:
“The graves were all dug to the same dimensions and measured 100 m in length, 25 m in width and 15 m in depth.”»[18].
Therefore, Reder must have explained himself most clearly to Bau – or are we perhaps to take into consideration the “possibility” that the Jewish Historical Commission and Judge Sehn also were part of the “misunderstanding”?

Taken from: Bełżec or the Holocaust Controversy of Roberto Muehlenkamp
By Carlo Mattogno (2009)
http://www.codoh.com/gcgv/gcgvhcrm.html


Sorry Roberto, but you are grasping at straws. Funny how you accuse Mattogno of ignoring things in his new response that you said in your blog three yeasr before him and yet you're ignoring something of his in his respose right here in your own rejoinder. Next!

For while he was obviously wrong about the size of the mass graves and (assuming the drawing was not an oversimplified rendering of Reder's description) about their being all aligned in the manner depicted by J. Bau, there were aspects in Reder's account that are not so far away from the findings of Prof. Kola. As Mattogno himself tells us [27], J.Bau’s map based on Reder's account shows "26 graves along the northwestern border and 6 in the center". Prof. Kola found 21 of his 33 graves, or 64 % of the total, in the western and north-western part of the camp, the other 12 or 36 % in the camp's north-eastern area. So apart from the total number of graves counted by Reder and Kola being similar (30 vs. 33), there are two things that Reder got more or less right: the fact that there were mass graves in two different areas of the camp and the placing of most mass graves in the western/northwestern camp sector. In emphasizing the "disagreement" between Prof. Kola’s map and the map of J.Bau/Reder, Mattogno apparently failed to realize the similarities between the two.


Let's examine these maps again.

Two kola maps.
Image
Image

The Bau drawn, Reder described map.
Image

So yes, there is some overlap as you can see. It would seem Roberto does have a point here about location similarities and also how kola and his team were able to find graves in places that Reder described if you examine the artistic depictions. Again, this is all based on the assumption that sufficient drilling and core sampling was done at those places to prove those were mass graves. At this point, I am just seeing whether or not the depictions of Belzec as rendered by Reder and Kola have overlap and similarities and it seems they do. So congrats to Roberto on finding similarities between the two and nothing more. At least for now at this point.

Continuing on with Roberto's 2009 rejoinder to Mattogno's 2009 response.

Mattogno takes issue with my argument that "the area of the graves shown in the investigative commission’s maps corresponds to the graves Kola located in the eastern part of the camp" by pointing out that on said maps the area of the graves is represented by a rectangle placed near the northeastern border of the camp, whereas on Prof. Kola’s map the majority of graves is (dis)located along the north-western confines ("mentre nel disegno di Kola la maggior parte delle fosse risulta dislocata lungo il confine nord–ovest, nel disegno della Commissione di inchiesta polacca tutta l'area delle fosse è concentrata in un rettangolo posto sul confine nord–orientale del campo").


Let's see the Commission's maps again.
Image

Had I had written anything to the contrary? I don’t think so. And what is this oh-so-clear "contradiction" supposed to mean, other than the Polish investigators having only excavated graves in the north-eastern camp area (Mattogno quotes from reports about these excavations later in his book[28]) and perhaps wrongly assumed that this north-eastern area was the camp's only area of mass graves?

If you will recall, I had to rotate that Bau-Reder map in order to make it jive with the two Kola maps I posted earlier. When first looking at those two maps, I was not sure which is North, East, South, or West. Thus, I was not sure what the North east graves were. However if you look at the photo on the left, you will see that F stands for corpse pit, and F is a vertical rectangle standing in the north east corner of the camp. So it seems that these Commmission maps need no rotation like that Bau-Reder map did. This means that Roberto is correct in that in as much as there are alleged to have been graves in the north east part of the camp, Bau-Reder, Kola and the Commission all agree.

This might not look good on the thoroughness of contemporary Polish criminal investigations, but the fact remains that the 1945 Polish investigators found mass graves in a part of the camp where Prof. Kola also found mass graves, and vice-versa.

So there is an agreement on the north east part of the camp as I said just above. Okay, fine. You get that one Roberto. They all agree on the north east part.

Continuing on with Roberto's article.

To Mattogno’s original claim that "Kola’s and Robin O’Neil’s maps (documents 4 and 5 in the Appendix) show mass graves scattered at random all over the camp, without any particular orientation or order"[29], I had responded by pointing out that the graves, as shown on Kola’s maps, are concentrated in the western and north-western part of the camp area on the one hand and in the eastern part of the camp area on the other, the former lying close together whereas the latter are more scattered.


First let us look at the O Neil map, which Mattogno has in the back of his Belzec book.

Image

I would say that we have already established that the kola maps, both of them, do in fact depict what Roberto says they depict on paper. A concentration of graves in the west and north-west and a bunch of graves in the north east.

Continuing on

Mattogno brushes away this comment with the hand-waving remark that the mass graves are really scattered at random, in the form of a horse-shoe, in the north-western and north-eastern parts of the camp ("Su questo punto qualunque discussione è inutile: le fosse comuni sono proprio sparpagliate alla rinfusa, a ferro di cavallo, sui lati nord–ovest/nord–est del campo, come risulta indubitabilmente dal relativo disegno di Kola").

So in other words, Mattogno is saying that the Bau drawn, Reder described depiction has nothing in common with O Neil's depiction. That is not so. There is a concentration of graves in the west/north west of the camp and a concentration of graves in the north east. All photos by different people so far are artistically similar in that respect.

If you look at the O Neil photo, in the north east, you do see a bit of a horseshoe. But if you refer back to the Bau-Reder depiction, you see nice rectangles. And the kola photo that is in black and white that I posted earlier, also looks simliar to O Neil in terms of a horseshoe formation being in the north east. However this horseshoe doesn't seem to fit with the German Commission's findings
Image
which depict an EXACT rectangle like the Bau-Reder drawing.

So are we to say that none of the talk from any of these three to four different parties is correct simply because some draw rectangles AS A ROUGH DRAFT while other get REALLY PRECISE and draw almost horseshoe like formations? No. How can you compare apples and oranges like this in the first place. Number one, if you take a rectangle, you can draw a horseshoe into it. Number two, the horseshoes and the rectangles are in the same spot. The north east part of the camp. So when different people come to the same conclusion and have synchronicity, it's hard to disregard it outright. Ask a lawyer who puts witnesses on the stand in any case.

Continuing on.

It is interesting to see how "scattered at random all over the camp, without any particular orientation or order" becomes "scattered at random, in the form of a horse-shoe, in the north-western and north-eastern parts of the camp", as if both concepts were identical (which they are obviously not), and without Mattogno acknowledging that the concentration of graves in two specific camp areas means a certain "orientation or order" and that the description in his book is rubbish.

Why Mattogno considers the graves to be "scattered at random" in the two areas in which they are concentrated he doesn't explain, but it becomes apparent from his original text[30] that his measure is an "orderly arrangement" such as depicted on J. Bau’s map. Mattogno ignores my arguments against such arrangement in the original blog:

It certainly has advantages to dig the graves in rows next to each other, insofar as this doen’t lead to grave walls too thin and thus subject to collapsing in sandy soil like that at Belzec. The results of Kola’s investigation suggest that in fact graves next to each other merged in some cases through the collapse of sides, which makes it more difficult to establish the original number, shape and size of the affected graves. Placing the graves too close together might also have made the removal of the soil taken out of the graves more difficult.


Another explanation, not considered in the original blog, is that an orderly arrangement of huge mass graves as idealized by Mattogno required expertise and machinery, two factors that only came into play at Belzec as the camp's SS staff (whose members were not trained military personnel but had mostly worked before in the Aktion T4 program of murdering hospitalized mental patients in Germany and Austria[31]) gained experience in their murder work.

Before we go on, I want to make it clear that Zyklon B gas was not used at Belzec.

Changes to killing methods
Wirth developed his own ideas on the basis of the experience he had gained in the "Euthanasia" program and decided to supply the fixed gas chamber with gas produced by the internal-combustion engine of a motorcar. Wirth rejected Zyklon B which was later used at Auschwitz. This gas was produced by private firms and its extensive use in Belzec might have aroused suspicion and led to problems of supply. He therefore preferred a system of extermination based on ordinary, universally available gasoline and diesel fuel. For economic and transport reasons, Wirth did not make use here of industrial bottled carbon monoxide as in T-4, but had the same gas supplied by a large engine (although witnesses differ as to its type, most probably it was a petrol engine), whose exhaust fumes, poisonous in an enclosed space, were led by a system of pipes into the gas chambers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belzec_extermination_camp

Friedrich Burg and Hannover have already exposed this scientific fraud and has even shown how Nizkor has fudged facts to keep their nonsense claims about diesel gas alive.
viewtopic.php?download=26428&t=4086

Now as seen above we have Roberto saying, "an orderly arrangement of huge mass graves as idealized by Mattogno required expertise and machinery, two factors that only came into play at Belzec as the camp's SS staff gained experience in their murder work." So in other words, they got sloppy and made lousy, random grave sites, but only then did they become more efficient and start to make an 'orderly arrangement' of mass graves.

Continuing on

Alex Bay has addressed the resulting differences between mass graves made in the early and later stages of the Belzec camp's operation, as follows[32](emphases added):

In Figure 4.6.13, the graves sites as mapped by Kola are overlaid to the aerial photograph. It is notable that none of the mounds numbered 1 through 6 coincide with site Kola identified as containing ashes and charcoal. This is an indication that there were more large graves sites in this area of the camp.

In support of this conclusion, Figure 4.6.14 is presented. The areas, annotated A through D have been added to the overlay, where Kola found disturbed soils, but found neither human remains or charcoal. It is immediately apparent that there are six roughly equally spaced sites of disturbed soil or where ashes were present 25 to 30 meters apart ( A through D plus the two grave sites) along this northern camp boundary. All are in the same size range - about 25 meters long - the exception being site D whose full size being unknown since Kola coring ceased in that place. However, the region in which bright new soils brought up by excavation extends another 25 to 30 meters further east. The even spacing and uniform sizes suggests that each site of disturbed soil is a grave, and that the lettered sites were those emptied of bodies for burning and whose the ashes were reburied elsewhere. The ordered arrangement of these sites also points to their belonging to the last period of the camp. Furthermore, there is room for two more large grave site in the section to the east that remains archeologically unexplored. If one takes the chaotic and disorderly scatter of the burial sites elsewhere to be symptomatic of the earlier months of the camp's existence, then here, the relatively even spacing and sizes of the graves suggest they belong to the final months. One would expect that the SS’s refinement of the mechanical and procedural techniques of mass murder and corpse disposal to be reflected in more orderly graves. In addition, the use of two large excavators would be reflected by large graves.

It is concluded that in Belzec’s final period, the refinement of the mechanics of mass murder, aided by mechanization, led to the use of uniformly sized mass graves dug in a rough orderly way.


Besides plausibly suggesting early incompetence/inexperience as the reason for a comparatively haphazard arrangement of the graves in the first period of the Belzec extermination camp's operation, Alex Bay's assessment is also significant in that it points to the existence of huge mass graves not identified by Prof. Kola in the area of Belzec extermination camp.


I must go back over this website that just got quoted
http://www.holocaust-history.org/belzec/deathcamp/index
because they provide some pictures I think we should have a look at.

Figure 4.6.13
Image
Unfortunately, when compared with the other photos I have put in here, this is obviously upside down. Let me switch it around so that it's in line with every other Belzec depiction I have put up so far.
Image

Figure 4.6.14
Image
Allow me to flip this one around properly as well.
Image

Now back to that quotation block with bolded text.

"In Figure 4.6.13, the graves sites as mapped by Kola are overlaid to the aerial photograph. It is notable that none of the mounds numbered 1 through 6 coincide with site Kola identified as containing ashes and charcoal. This is an indication that there were more large graves sites in this area of the camp."

Well now my only question is did Kola actually find ashes and charcoal or not?

"In support of this conclusion, Figure 4.6.14 is presented. The areas, annotated A through D have been added to the overlay, where Kola found disturbed soils, but found neither human remains or charcoal. "

So I guess that means there were no bodies in these disturbed soils then.

"It is immediately apparent that there are six roughly equally spaced sites of disturbed soil or where ashes were present 25 to 30 meters apart ( A through D plus the two grave sites) along this northern camp boundary. "

While they are saying that disturbed soils lettered A, B, C and D on the page had no human remains, there are two plots inbetween A and B which do according to Kola. Look at 4.6.14 to see what I mean and follow that map legend to see it. So therefore what now?

"The even spacing and uniform sizes suggests that each site of disturbed soil is a grave, and that the lettered sites were those emptied of bodies for burning and whose the ashes were reburied elsewhere. The ordered arrangement of these sites also points to their belonging to the last period of the camp. "

So then where did the bodies go? They were burned and turned into ash. What I want to know is does it really make sense do dig up human remains from one place and put ash another? Why would the nazis do this? Did they think they could bury ash and avoid being caught? I mean, core sampling technology in archaeology can't be that old can it? Is there some internal logical consistency in this pattern of thinking, but yet it's still just an ad hoc hypothesis since there are no bodies in A, B, C, and D and this it isn't looking so good for the other side?

"The ordered arrangement of these sites also points to their belonging to the last period of the camp."

So what the holocaust believers are saying is that towards the end of the war, and thus the end of the existence of an operational camp called Belzec, the Nazis ONLY MADE ordered arrangements. Therefore if A,B,C and D and those two disturbed soil mounds in between A and B (as shown in 4.6.14), were made near the end of the camp, then would that not mean that the Nazis, in their newly developed "orderly arrangement of huge mass graves as idealized by Mattogno required expertise and machinery" did in fact happen post hiding of the human remains of A,B,C and D in other places? Therefore shouldn't they have done either to the north-west side or the north east side? But then if we take Roberto at his word that Mattogno is wrong and that the north-west part and the north-east part of Belzec in fact are ordered arrangements, then what we have here is a scneario of nazis moving evidence of all the Jews they gassed with diesel vans from plots "orderly arrainged plots" A, B, C, and D, burning the dug up bodies and putting the ash somewhere else. Say somewhere in the northwest or northeast since allegedly kola found ash in some of those places too? If the Nazis dug up bodies from A, B, C and D and then burned the ash, why would they go to the trouble to put them in the northwest or even the northeast since those are the only places that are claimed to have had human remains including corpses, skeltons AND ASH? Wouldn't it make more sense to just dig up the bodies, burn them and then put them back in the original place if the Nazis were trying to hide it? I mean would they really think that taking the time to move the ash of the bodies from A, B, C, and D and put them somewhere else would prevent them from being found? Again, did the nazis think they could bury ash and avoid being caught? I mean, core sampling technology in archaeology can't be that old can it? How old is it? Did it exist in the second world war? Were the Nazis aware of how this could be used against them in the future? If the answer to all these questions is yes, then it means the above scenario as held by the gas chamber mongers is absurd and would take too much time and would make no sense if the plan was to cover up evidence of mass bodies.

Besides plausibly suggesting early incompetence/inexperience as the reason for a comparatively haphazard arrangement of the graves in the first period of the Belzec extermination camp's operation, Alex Bay's assessment is also significant in that it points to the existence of huge mass graves not identified by Prof. Kola in the area of Belzec extermination camp. We’ll get back to this in connection with Mattogno's objections to what I wrote about the capacity of the graves[33].

In the original blog I pointed out that "most of the graves, as becomes apparent from Kola’s descriptions thereof and the figures shown hereafter, have the form of squares or rectangles, and where there are irregular shapes, as especially in the case of grave no. 14, it is reasonable to assume that these resulted from changes to the original grave structure, due to the camp staff's ash disposal and leveling work at the end of the camp's operation or to postwar robbery digs".

So there are mass graves, but we can't prove it because kola didn't find any. We just think the nazis dug up the bodies and moved the ash somewhere else.

Mattogno does not dispute this (though he will later claim that these regular shapes were arbitrarily determined by Prof. Kola’s, as we shall see when I discuss his comments about section 4.6 of the original blog[34]), but claims that the irregular shapes of some of the graves confirm his thesis that "only a part" ("solo una parte") of the mass graves identified by Prof. Kola can be considered original mass graves of the Belzec camp. The mass graves he sees as having a somewhat strange form ("una forma alquanto stramba") are 6 out of 33 mass graves identified by Prof. Kola: graves nos. 1, 9, 12, 14, 22 e 29[35].

Mattogno's remark: [/i]"It is no exaggeration to claim that, if the camp commander had had the mass graves dug in such an irregular fashion, he would have been shot for sabotage. Unless, of course, he had peculiar artistic inclinations. Many graves shown by Kola have, in fact, the oddest shapes!"[/i] was criticized in the original blog as displaying not only a rather infantile cynicism, but also an ignorant notion of practices within the SS hierarchy, there being no case known to me (and I've done some reading about the matter, especially in judgments of West German courts where this issue was examined[36]) of an SS-man having been executed or otherwise severely punished for refusing an order to commit mass murder or showing incompetence in carrying out such order (I gave the example of the first commander of Treblinka extermination camp, Dr. Eberl, whose incompetence in running this camp had no further consequences for him than being replaced in command by Franz Stangl).

Seems like Roberto has scored a point here. I am not sure of what documentation Mattogno has provided to prove this assertion of his.

Mattogno’s response to this criticism is some lame mouthing that he was being "ironic" in connection with his claim that "only a part" of the mass graves identified by Kola can be considered original, and that I should have spotted his fine "irony".

A revealingly tasteless irony that would have been, if it really was one and Mattogno is not just scrounging up a post-hoc excuse.

Pot, meet kettle. P.S. Yeah, that was irresponsible of Mattogno to say it if he didn't mean it.
Last edited by Drew J on Fri Jul 17, 2009 1:37 am, edited 6 times in total.

Drew J
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 249
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 12:13 am

Re: Belzec: a fraudulent excavation

Postby Drew J » 9 years 10 months ago (Wed Jul 15, 2009 1:50 am)

Part three of Roberto Muehlenkamp's 2009 rejoinder to Carlos Mattogno's 2009 response.
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... gy-my.html

3. Corpses Found[38]

In responding to the blog that is Part 3 of my original article[39], Mattogno starts out misrepresenting the meaning of my introductory statement: "Mattogno seems to be especially happy that the number of unburned corpses still lying in the Belzec mass graves is, in his opinion, very low."

He does that by omitting the context of this statement – a critical reference to the conspiracy theory he links to this supposedly low number of bodies, based on the obviously deliberate misconception of the nature and purpose of Prof. Kola's archaeological investigation that I exposed before[40] – and addressing the statement as if it had been what it was not, i.e. some sort of moral reproach.

I exposed that the attempt to turn the entire camp into a memorial ( a fact which, to your credit Roberto, you exposed as Mattogno getting wrong) was part of a plan to try and cover things up and not let the revisionists test your theories. By turning it all into a memorial, and invoking Jewish religious law, you could prevent revisionists from digging. But alas, they relented and allowed kola to do his study because they hoped he would find what they wanted him to. They realized they should let the evidence speak. It was a one eighty they pulled.

The contents and tone of Mattogno's comment to this misrepresented statement are worth rendering in translation, for what they reveal about the general confusion inside Mattogno’s mind (assuming he really believes what he writes), especially the amusingly bizarre ideas he has of who his opponents are and what motivates them (some day I'll have to burst his bubble in this respect):

This is very true, because these are real corpses [italics are Mattogno’s]. Muehlenkamp and his kind, on the other hand, seem to be particularly unhappy about this fact; people who are sad that the legend of 4 million dead at Auschwitz has collapsed and feel cheated out of almost three million Jewish victims; people who would have preferred it if at Belzec there had been found hundreds of thousands of corpses so that they could wave even more their whining self-pity, be able to yell about the beastly ferocity of the executioners – except when unconditionally supporting and justifying the ferocious Israeli slaughterers – and smugly shout down the revisionists with their "material proof".


After this instructive self-portrait, Mattogno again quotes his considerations quoted in my original blog, before beginning to address my "objections" supposedly based on the "hypocritical" (actually, as we have seen, very accurate[41]) assumption that the purpose of Prof. Kola’s archaeological investigation was not that of providing material proof of the "presumed extermination".

Yeah sure. Whatever. Mattogno was wrong about the size of the memorial, but correct about its motives. He was right but for the wrong reasons.

In the original blog I had pointed out that the 137 core drill samples schematically shown in Kola’s book, which Mattogno had postulated to be "obviously the most significant ones of the 236 samples [from mass graves] taken altogether", are a) shown by Prof. Kola as mere illustrative examples, b) not samples from all graves and c) not samples from graves alone.

I will say this is interesting Roberto. Let's check Mattogno's book on Belzec to see if he does throw out the 137 number in the way you say he does. So we do check and yes, he does on page 77-78.

Image

Now did Roberto Muehlenkamp point this out in his original blog from 2006 written in response to Mattogno's Belzec book? Let's just see.

there arises the question why Mattogno links such far-reaching conclusions to the fact that only in some of the graves investigated, and there not in all drillings, Kola’s team came upon unburned corpses. The samples schematically shown by Kola, which Mattogno takes to be "obviously the most significant ones" from among those taken out of mass graves, look as follows:

Kola Figure 12

Kola Figure 13

Kola Figure 14

Kola Figure 15

Kola Figure 16

As one can see, these schematically represented samples, shown by Kola as illustrative examples, are not samples from all graves and also not samples from graves alone. One can also recognize one of the possible reasons for the relatively small number of corpse finds, which Mattogno does not reveal to his readers: by far not all drillings were so deep that they could even have hit layers of corpses, which as a rule were at the bottoms of the graves. For instance, in the case of grave # 10, pointed out by Mattogno, only 4 of the 7 drills were so deep that they could hit corpses lying at the bottom of the grave, and of these four three actually did hit layers of corpses. In the case of grave # 20, one notes in the above-shown Figure 16 from Kola’s book that only the drill that hit a corpse layer actually penetrated to the depth in which this corpse layer was located. The drill sample shown above or to the right of this one (depending on how you look at the figure) stops at the very place at which the corpse layer starts in the "neighboring" sample, which suggests that in this case Kola tried to avoid again drilling into a corpse layer (see quote in Part 1 about the reproaches voiced by a Jewish cleric regarding the drill penetration of corpse layers). Without a mention of the varying depth of the drills and the apparent reasons for this (see Part 1), Mattogno’s sensational statement: «Human remains are present in 3 out of 7 samples in grave 10, and in 1 out of 5 samples in grave 3 and grave 20. In these, the only three graves containing corpses, human remains were identified in 5 out of 17 samples, i.e., in fewer than 30% of these cases. Thus, from all 236 drilling samples, we have only 5 ‘positive’ cases, that is, 2%!» looks like a deliberate attempt to mislead his readers, as Mattogno should have understood that the number of corpse layers hit by drillings does not necessarily allow for conclusions about the number or extension of actually existing corpse layers.


When I looked at those Kola figures, I indeed found that these indeed are not samples from all graves and also not samples from graves alone. You can check them for yourself. So why Carlos Mattogno would call them the most significant I do not know. It seems that in 2006, Roberto was pointing this all out and he accused Carlos of ignoring it in 2009. Did he? Let's check.

"Muehlenkamp’s objection is based on the false presumption that Kola’s survey was not undertaken in order to find material remains of the alleged extermination, something which inevitably leads to a false criterion of judgment. He objects that the diagrams of drillings published by Kola are only 'illustrative examples', whereas I assert that they are 'the most significant ones', and goes on to specify that they are 'not samples from all graves', something I have never claimed, as I clearly note that the diagrams show the results of 137 of the total 236 drilling samples."
Well on what grounds do you claim they are the most significant ones in your book then Carlos Mattogno? I guess the answer is here in your 2009 response.

"I have analyzed only such documents from which quantitative indications may be drawn, namely the 137 sample results published by Kola."

In other words, it's all that Kola published. Well Roberto has a response it seems in his 2009 rejoinder to your 2009 response.

Mattogno briefly mentions the first argument, omits the third and responds to the second by stating that he had not claimed the samples to have been samples from all mass graves. The latter argument is irrelevant at best to the point that Mattogno postulated the samples shown in Prof. Kola’s book to be "obviously the most significant ones", not only without a basis other than his own supposition, but also ignoring three indications that the samples shown were meant to be exemplificative and not necessarily the most significant ones, namely that the samples visualized are
a) expressly stated to be "examples of graphic illustration of the results",
b) not samples from all graves – they include samples showing corpse layers from only 3 out of 10 graves in which corpse layers were found (graves nos. 3, 10 and 20, while corpse layers were also found and described in graves 1, 4, 13, 25, 27, 28 and 32), and samples from only 11 out of 33 graves altogether (nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 20) – , and
c) not only samples from graves. Figure 12 shows 4 samples from grave # 6, 1 sample from grave # 7 and 5 samples from areas other than graves. Figure 13: 7 samples from grave # 10, 25 samples from areas other than graves. Figure 14: 25 samples from graves (6 from # 14, 7 from # 15, 4 from # 16, 8 from # 17), 7 samples from areas other than graves. Figure 15: 18 samples from graves (11 from # 3, 2 from # 4, 5 from # 5), 13 samples from areas other than graves. Figure 16: 22 samples from graves (13 from # 14, 9 from # 2), 10 samples from areas other than graves. Total: 137 samples, thereof 77 from graves and 60 from areas other than graves. Readers are invited to check my count[42].

Item c) also means that Mattogno lied when claiming that the 137 samples shown in Kola's book were all samples from mass graves, as he clearly did when juxtaposing this number with the number (236) of samples identifying mass graves[43]. No wonder that he chose to gloss over this argument in his response.


Here is that footnote.
[43] Mattogno, Belzec, pages 71 and 77.

Let's check Mattogno's book on Belzec. On page 71 we see this.

"Altogether 2227 drillings were sunk, and mass graves were identified by 236 of them."

Now remember back on page 77 pasted above?

"Kola publishes the results of 137 samples - obviously the most significant ones of the 236 samples taken altogether."

So it does seem that by implication of what is on two pages, Carlos Mattogno is saying that there were 236 samples identifying mass graves, and that there were 137 of them that were published by Kola. Therefore these 137 would have to have come from mass graves since they come from a group of 236 that all had identifications as being from mass graves. Carlos cannot avoid the logical implication of what he says on pages 71 and 77. So now that Roberto has pointed out that not all of these 137 samples in fact came from mass graves, he exposes a mistake in Carlos' book on Belzec.


...more to come guys. I think I'll stop for now. Any comments yet? Please tell me you won't just wait for Mattogno's response. Tell me what you think about what I have done so far.
Last edited by Drew J on Fri Jul 17, 2009 1:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9740
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: Belzec: a fraudulent excavation

Postby Hannover » 9 years 10 months ago (Wed Jul 15, 2009 3:20 pm)

Muehlenkamp said:
This might not look good on the thoroughness of contemporary Polish criminal investigations, but the fact remains that the 1945 Polish investigators found mass graves in a part of the camp where Prof. Kola also found mass graves, and vice-versa.

Nonsense. Neither of them have shown a single corpse or mass grave. Making little drawings on maps, or even the laughably drawn 'core samples', while not giving any verifiable photos, simply exposes the lack of mass graves. As I said:
In the course of debating the bizarre allegations made about Belzec, I was referred to a source for the "complete report" on an alleged excavation of the Belzec camp where 600,000 - 800,000 Jews were allegedly murdered. The source given, which I now have, is Robin O'Neill, Belzec: The Forgotten Death Camp, the 'East European Jewish Affairs', v. 28, no.2, 1998/9, p.49-62. Here are the highlights:

- 2 alleged 'core samples'..hand drawn, not photographs...there are no photos showing what the drawing attempts to depict, why no photos?

- a photo of a piece of plastic with a star of David printed on it, sitting on some grass....so what?

- a photo of a human skull and a few bones strewn across a modern, paved surface...laughable, something from a high school theatre props cabinet that were simply placed there

- a photo of 4 spoons, a bottle, a comb.....polished & glistening in the sun, so what?

- a post WWII drawing that is supposed to be the 'gas chamber'....for which there is no credible evidence

- a list of things allegedly found: beer bottles, buttons, pieces of glass, etc., referred to as "very interesting"....boring actually and nothing you couldn't find in the average backyard

- reference to a Luftwaffe photo of 1944...not shown, ofcourse

- reference to the Communist 'Main Commission for the Investigation of Crimes Against the Polish Nation/Institute of National Memory, Warsaw....no actual study by this alleged commission shown, just given as alleged "source material", why do they hide it?

- reference to an alleged map prepared by the 'Lublin Region Surveyor's office in Zamocs'....alleged map not shown, ofcourse

- two maps alleging positions of "mass graves"....no photos of alleged mass graves shown, no verifiability of these maps possible, the usual

- claims of over 1700 'bore holes'....not one shown

Some assertions made in this 'report':

- gassed Jews were later exhumed and cremated at the rate of 2,000 per day....but no physical evidence exists to support that assertion, those Germans soldiers were magicians I suppose

- only one Jew survived, Chaim Herszman, the other 299 of the final labor crew used for removing all the traces were sent to Sobibor and shot on arrival....no evidence for that given, a mere assertion, typical

- the exhumation and cremation process took place between November, 1942 and March, 1943, all traces obliterated.... how convenient, but impossible

- stated: 'corpses not exhumed and burnt may have been the result of mass panic with insufficient time to destroy all evidence'....wrong, the Germans had plenty of advance notice of the approaching Red Army; so then show us the evidence to match the story

- the alleged "gas chambers" utilized Russian T-34 diesel tank engines, gas piped from each engine into "chambers" ....utterly absurd given the nature of diesel emissions and the desperate need for fuel at the front

- Kurt Gerstein is cited as an important provider of evidence, as is Chaim Hirszman, and Rudolf Reder....Gerstein has been shown to have made SIX different, highly conflicting 'confessions' with scientific impossibilities and absurdities galore, they don't mention that...the others do no better

Other than that we have text claiming sizes of the graves, alleged amounts of bodies, various location claims etc....but nothing in the way of verification, no photos of remains 'in situ', no photos of people at the site, nothing. The Belzec story remains a lie.

And this is what passes for 'holocaust evidence'


This is too easy.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

Drew J
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 249
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 12:13 am

Re: Belzec: a fraudulent excavation

Postby Drew J » 9 years 10 months ago (Wed Jul 15, 2009 4:32 pm)

Nonsense. Neither of them have shown a single corpse or mass grave. Making little drawings on maps, or even the laughably drawn 'core samples', while not giving any verifiable photos, simply exposes the lack of mass graves.

As my caveat said, all that I can grant for now being that I have only reviewed the first two parts of Muehlenkamp's rejoinder, is that there in fact is agreement between sources about the location of graves in Belzec despite Mattogno's statement to the contrary. Every photograph, when you rotate it properly to match the rest, all agree on the north east body pits and there is even overlap between Kola's map and the Bau-Reder map. All this means is that the different parties all agree, it doesn't scientifically prove mass graves holding as many dead Jews as the extermination theorists say. That is what is supposed to be proven in parts three and four by Muehlenkamp which I have yet to finish analyzing.

You know given the few technical errors Muehlenkamp has shown Mattogno to have made so far in his book (and on his blog), perhaps Mattogno should consider revising his book on Belzec and releasing an updated second edition. That way he will be seen as being correct for the right reasons.
Last edited by Drew J on Fri Jul 17, 2009 1:43 am, edited 1 time in total.

Drew J
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 249
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 12:13 am

Re: Belzec: a fraudulent excavation

Postby Drew J » 9 years 10 months ago (Thu Jul 16, 2009 4:10 am)

Continuing on with part three where I left off.
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... gy-my.html

But let's go back a bit. Remember this?

In the original blog I had pointed out that the 137 core drill samples schematically shown in Kola’s book, which Mattogno had postulated to be "obviously the most significant ones of the 236 samples [from mass graves] taken altogether", are a) shown by Prof. Kola as mere illustrative examples, b) not samples from all graves and c) not samples from graves alone.

Mattogno briefly mentions the first argument, omits the third and responds to the second by stating that he had not claimed the samples to have been samples from all mass graves. The latter argument is irrelevant at best to the point that Mattogno postulated the samples shown in Prof. Kola’s book to be "obviously the most significant ones", not only without a basis other than his own supposition, but also ignoring three indications that the samples shown were meant to be exemplificative and not necessarily the most significant ones, namely that the samples visualized are
a) expressly stated to be "examples of graphic illustration of the results",
b) not samples from all graves – they include samples showing corpse layers from only 3 out of 10 graves in which corpse layers were found (graves nos. 3, 10 and 20, while corpse layers were also found and described in graves 1, 4, 13, 25, 27, 28 and 32), and samples from only 11 out of 33 graves altogether (nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 20) – , and
c) not only samples from graves. Figure 12 shows 4 samples from grave # 6, 1 sample from grave # 7 and 5 samples from areas other than graves. Figure 13: 7 samples from grave # 10, 25 samples from areas other than graves. Figure 14: 25 samples from graves (6 from # 14, 7 from # 15, 4 from # 16, 8 from # 17), 7 samples from areas other than graves. Figure 15: 18 samples from graves (11 from # 3, 2 from # 4, 5 from # 5), 13 samples from areas other than graves. Figure 16: 22 samples from graves (13 from # 14, 9 from # 2), 10 samples from areas other than graves. Total: 137 samples, thereof 77 from graves and 60 from areas other than graves. Readers are invited to check my count[42].

Item c) also means that Mattogno lied when claiming that the 137 samples shown in Kola's book were all samples from mass graves, as he clearly did when juxtaposing this number with the number (236) of samples identifying mass graves[43]. No wonder that he chose to gloss over this argument in his response.


I have already had a bit of a reponse above to this. My other part is why Kola would bother to publish core samples that didn't even have corpses in them? Muehlenkamp says, "the samples shown were meant to be exemplificative and not necessarily the most significant ones." Well what is the point of publishing a work that supposedly proves around 400,000 to 600,000 dead Jews in the camp if you're not going to publish the most damning? Why do you wish to publish a book proving a massive holocaust but then leave out samples that would help build your case and puts ones in that don't have what you are looking for (human remains)? Why not just stick to dealing with only samples that have human remains in them and simply showing where they came from instead of wasting time talking about samples that have no corpses in them? What are you doing? Just letting the reader fill in the blanks with his imagintion and blind faith that surely, that many Jews must have died there? That has got to be it.

Based on his false claim that all 137 core drill samples shown in Prof. Kola’s book are from mass graves (actually 60 are not) and his baseless postulation that none of the samples from mass graves not visualized in Prof. Kola’s book contained human remains (the term is understood as including only complete corpses or larger parts thereof, namely bones, to the exclusion of human ashes, bone fragments or "loose" teeth), Mattogno triumphantly announced in his book that only five of the samples visualized contained human remains and that therefore "from all 236 drilling samples, we have only 5 ‘positive’ cases, that is, 2%"[44].

'five of the samples visualzed' meaning the samples visualized in Kola's book. Remember the pictures from Muehlenkamp's 2006 reponse to Mattogno's book that were hyperlinked with this text?



Those are the 137. So Muehlenkamp says sixty of these are not actually from mass graves because they are simply not labeled as such. Check these artistic depictions out. He is correct. Another point for him against Mattogno.

If he had been a little more honest, he would have contrasted his 5 "positive cases" (I don't understand why he counted only 5 when the samples he listed as showing and/or mentioning human remains – 482/XV-30-60, 486/XV-25-50 and 485/XV-30-50 in grave # 10, 286/XVI-90-40 and 332/XVI-85-40 in grave # 3, and 1042/XIV-45-80 in grave # 20 – add up to 6) only with the 77 core samples from mass graves shown on pages 14 to 18 of Prof. Kola’s book.

60 samples (not from mass graves) plus 77 samples (from mass graves) equals 137.

Think of 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 of Kola's book. That's five pages. And figures 12 to and including 16 are five figures. Five figures. Five pages. These five figures are on those five pages in Kola's book. Understood and agreed.

286/XVI-90-40 and 332/XVI-85-40 in grave # 3
is represented here in Kola figure 15.
http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c166/ ... gure15.jpg

482/XV-30-60, 486/XV-25-50 and 485/XV-30-50 in grave # 10 is represented bottom row right hand side on Kola figure 13.
http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c166/ ... gure13.jpg

and 1042/XIV-45-80 in grave # 20 is represented here in Kola figure 16.
http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c166/ ... gure16.jpg
It's number 7 from the left on the top row.

So when Muehlenkamp says "Mattogno triumphantly announced in his book that only five of the samples visualized contained human remains and that therefore "from all 236 drilling samples, we have only 5 ‘positive’ cases, that is, 2%"[44]," he is right in saying that Mattogno should have mentioned that not only did he in fact count six and not five, but he should have mentioned that these 5 don't really come from the 236, but rather from the 137 which don't even account for all the graves that do exist in the camp. So Muehlenkamp would seem to be correct in that Mattogno has made an error and is making it seem like there are less corpses than there are by leaving out certain details. I.E. That these 137 samples (depicted in those five Kola figures) out of the 236 don't even contain samples from all graves. Roberto seems to be winning here. Carlos didn't give a proper ratio. It's things like that make Carlos' book on Belzec problematic and in need of correcting. Which is why you won't see me shelling money out for that book. Unless he admits to these errors and fixes then and updates and perhaps re-writes part of his Belzec book and comes out with an updated, fixed, second edition. But that's besides the point.

Of course this stuff from Muehlenkamp is all resting on the assumption that these particular selections from the 137 samples all in fact do have human remains dating back to the early forties. We have the word of Kola's book from 1999 and yet there are no photos of these samples that are supposed to cotain human are there? As fas as I can tell, there are not. It has been said I think more than once that there are in fact no photos. Therefore, I honestly see no reason for them to lie, although I kind of do at the same time. And since the foundation of Muehlenkamp's writings rest on actual human remains dating back to the early forties, if the existence of those isn't backed up sufficiently, then there may be reason to doubt the story that 400,000 to 600,000 Jews died there. Especially since we are told they were gassed with diesel which is itself a scientific problem. Could this be why no photos were published of their finds and why we just have to go on Kola's word and artistic depictions about what was found in those samples? Another attempt at a coverup? I will bring this up again later, but let's get back to Muehlenkamp.

If he had had a further measure of honesty, he would have set the "positive cases" he miscounted only against the 17 visualized core samples he counted in graves nos. 3, 10 and 20 (where I count a total of 27 samples, 11 in grave # 3, 7 in # 10 and 9 in # 20).

I would have to agree here. Count the positive cases just against the samples that are actually from graves and not against the number 236. Don't have such an incorrect, deceptive ratio Carlos Mattogno is what Roberto Muehlenkamp is saying basically.

If you read the brackets, Muehlenkamp is saying that Mattogno did not actually count all of the core samples that contain human remains. If you go back a little bit above, Mattogno has 2 samples total in grave number three in here in Kola figure 15.
http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c166/ ... gure15.jpg
Muehlenkamp says he counts 11 with human remains instead in grave number three.

Mattogno has 3 samples total in grave number 10 in here in Kola Figure 13.
http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c166/ ... gure13.jpg
Muehlenkamp says he counts 7 with human remains instead in grave number ten.

Mattogno has one sample total in grave number 20 in here in Kola figure 16.
http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c166/ ... gure16.jpg
Muehlenkamp says he counts 9 with human remains instead in grave number twenty.

Recall that earlier, Muehlenkamp, after busting Carlos Mattogno, showed with those 137 Kola figures, they don't in fact all contain samples from graves and only 77 of them do and 60 do not. Now keep in mind how many samples with human remains Mattogno finds in the samples taken from GRAVE 3 as depicted on Kola figure 15. Only 2. But Muehlenkamp says basically Mattogno is being dishonest and says he can find 11 in GRAVE 3, Kola Figure 15. In other words, EVERY SHOWN SAMPLE in grave 3 has human remains in it according to Muehlenkamp.
Image

How does he justify this? By how it looks? How it compares with the legend on Kola Figure 12? I would assume so.
Image

Let's put the map legend from figure 12 together with figure 15 which shows grave 3.
Image
It this appears to me that Muehlenkamp sees "Burned Human Bones" and "Human Bones and wax fat mass" in all those samples.

With grave number 10 in Kola Figure 13, only seven samples are seen and once again, Muehlenkamp says they all have "Burned Human Bones" and "Human Bones and wax fat mass".
http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c166/ ... gure13.jpg
I want you to pay attention to what Muehlenkamp has done. We see that Mattogno said there was only three samples with any human remains for one reason. They were labeled that way. Muehlenkamp however disregards this labeling DONE BY KOLA HIMSELF, and then decides to say ALL THESE SAMPLES have human remains in them EVEN THOUGH KOLA NEVER DEPICTED THE SAMPLES AND LABELED THEM THAT WAY. In fact if you go back to grave 3, HE DID THE SAME THING. Disregarded how KOLA HIMSELF labeled them (and how Mattogno simply repeated Kola's own words basically) and said there were more samples with human remains.

Does Muehlenkamp do this trick again regarding the final grave, grave 20, of which Mattogno said only one core sample had human remains whereas Muehlenkamp said there were nine? Does he disregard Kola's own admission (through labeling of core samples) about which has human remains and doesn't and make up his own numbers to inflate the numbers as holocaust mongers like to do?
http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c166/ ... gure16.jpg
Well not quite. Remember this is the one that Mattogno said contained a human sample.
1042/XIV-45-80
And yet it is not labeled as containing human remains by Kola as you can see. So I don't know why Mattogno would say it has any. That being said I don't know why Muehlenkamp would label extra samples from grave 20 as having human samples or why he would label certain samples from grave 10 as having human remains when Kola wouldn't even label those samples as having any when Kola had plenty of opportunity to. I suppse the retort would be, as I supposed earlier, that Muehlenkamp would say, "So what if they aren't all labeled. Just look at the map legend from kola figure 12."

Continuing on.

And if he had been completely honest, he would have set the shown samples containing human remains only against those out of the shown samples from graves 3, 10 and 20 that were deep enough to reach layers of human remains at the bottom of the graves, which was the case with only 4 of the drills in grave # 10 visualized in Figure 13 (of which 3 counted by Mattogno hit layers of corpses, a "positive" ratio of 75 % - and the fourth, drill 484/XV-30-55, was also "positive", as we shall see below), 1 of the drills in grave # 20 visualized in Figure 16, which hit a corpse layer (a "positive" ratio of 100 %), and the two drills in grave # 3, visualized in Figure 15, that hit human remains (286/XVI-90-40 and 332/XVI-85-40 – again a "positive" ratio of 100 %).


I'll get to this and the rest some other time. Thanks for reading so far. Comments and feedback and corrections would be appreciated, folks.
Last edited by Drew J on Fri Jul 17, 2009 1:46 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9740
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: Belzec: a fraudulent excavation

Postby Hannover » 9 years 10 months ago (Thu Jul 16, 2009 4:39 pm)

This is a pointless and distracting pissing contest concerning human remains which do not exist, like the old 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin' debate. Not one example of human remains has, or can be shown. Mattogno accepts, without reason, that Kola has found some human remains, when in fact Kola has found none. If Kola had found real human remains he would have shown them, he does not, he will not, he cannot.

As for shyster Muehlenkamp, she him demolished further here:
Poor old Roberto Muehlenkamp, aka 'Cortavagatas', posted at this forum and got demolished. It's embarrasing really.

Anyone can search his name here and see for themselves. A few examples:

R.Muehlenkamp: 'gas chambers' were hosed down, so no cyanide'
viewtopic.php?t=3706

'Those Prussian Blues Just Won't Wash'
viewtopic.php?t=4600

'Roberto Muehlenkamp: no fuel required for Auschwitz ovens'
viewtopic.php?t=3703

'Roberto Muehlenkamp shredded on 'gassings' & cyanide'
viewtopic.php?t=224

'Roberto Muehlenkamp debunked on 3.5kg of coke cremations'
viewtopic.php?t=420

'Cremation patent & 3.5 kg of coke per corpse debunked'
viewtopic.php?t=88


- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

Drew J
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 249
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 12:13 am

Re: Belzec: a fraudulent excavation

Postby Drew J » 9 years 10 months ago (Thu Jul 16, 2009 11:42 pm)

I would agree with you on the statement that a lot of IF's are to be granted to Muehlenkamp in terms of science since no known photos exist of these core samples that were taken. I would also agree with what I have posted before in that Muehlenkamp has in fact bested Mattogno on minor logical points here and there. But that's it. Minor logical points about artistic intrepretations and ratios is what Muehlenkamp is granted by me. Mattogno is correct about Belzec not being an extermination camp but for the wrong reasons as he has made a few technical mistakes along the way. That being said, the fact remains that Muehlenkamp and his ilk can not and will not ever fulfill the scientific burden of actually proving that those core samples contain what Kola says they do.

The Auschwitz tale was exposed. So was Dachau. So was Treblinka. I see a pattern here of continued scientific impossibilities from the holocaust mongers. Induction alone shows how unlikely Belzec was what they say it was. But we have more than that of course. Oh and the idea that water was used to hose down gas chambers to get rid of the Prussian Blue, how laughable indeed. I read all those old threads Hannover and you have been doing some great work over the years. I salute you as I have had my eye on this place for a while and used it to win debates.

Drew J
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 249
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 12:13 am

Re: Belzec: a fraudulent excavation

Postby Drew J » 9 years 10 months ago (Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:39 pm)

And if he had been completely honest, he would have set the shown samples containing human remains only against those out of the shown samples from graves 3, 10 and 20 that were deep enough to reach layers of human remains at the bottom of the graves,

Once again, he talks about Mattogno's habit of making a ratio that is false when you actually look at Kola's figures. I have already addressed this. It's just a misinterpretation of Kola's depictions which don't have video or photo to back them up. As I said, it's just a small technical victory that doesn't overall prove the diesel van mongers version. Show me the bodies, don't tell.

... samples from graves 3, 10 and 20 that were deep enough to reach layers of human remains at the bottom of the graves which was the case with only 4 of the drills in grave # 10 visualized in Figure 13 (of which 3 counted by Mattogno hit layers of corpses, a "positive" ratio of 75 % - and the fourth, drill 484/XV-30-55, was also "positive", as we shall see below),

483, 484, 485, and 486 in figure 10 are clearly the only samples that Muehlenkamp is saying were deep enough to reach human corpses. According to the kola depiction however, 485 is not labeled as having any human remains while the other three are. So it's interesting to note how Muehlenkamp, taking the holohoax version of Belzec for granted, and taking for granted the fact that it's a sample from a grave that has other samples that rate positive for human remains (according to Kola's depictions), he thinks he can just assume that the very large sample without human remains being labeled on it, has human remains nonetheless. Notice how as I just said, he takes a lot for granted. He just assumes things regarding 485. Therefore he is exaggerating a little when he says 4 of the drills in grave #10 were a positive hit for human remains based on the kola depiction.

As for 484, there are no human remains except for one canine tooth as the kola depiction says. Here is what was said by Mattogno this year in response to the 2006 blog entry of Muehlenkamp.

To my reproach that Kola keeps silent on the fact that “the human remains are intermingled also with animal remains”, Muehlenkamp raises two objections. The first one is truly amusing:

«First of all, if Mattogno really looked as attentively at the schematically represented soil samples as he implies, he should hardly have missed sample 484/XV-30-55 from grave # 10 in Figure 13 on page 15 of Kola’s book, in which, a little above the drill’s blockade (obviously by a layer of human corpses)[161] there is expressly mentioned the finding of canine tooth. This means that Kola had no problem with mentioning animal remains in the mass graves»

Thus for Muehlenkamp a “canine tooth” is not a tooth in the human mouth (the dentes canini), but the tooth of a dog! The term used by Kola in the Polish text is “kieł” which means (a human) canine tooth. In Polish “dog” is “pies” and the adjective “canine” is genitive to the noun; a “dog tooth” is therefore “ząb psa”.

After making a fool of himself...

http://www.codoh.com/gcgv/gcgvhcrm.html

So they found one tooth? That's it? Give me a break on 484. Come on.

What's funny is that as I said earlier, Muehlenkamp takes a lot of things for granted. He assumes that just because of his prior assumption of the truth of the diesel murder factory at Belzec, and due to the fact that these samples are depicted as taken from the same grave (grave 10, figure 13), that if a drill finds a blockade, then there must be corpses below. Problem is, assumptions without proof is not and never will be science or solid evidence. Second of all, what are the things that are acting as blockades and preventing the drill from going any further in the ground to take really deep samples? He says that since 483 went deep and found human remains, and 484 went nearly as deep but hit a blockade, that blockade simply must be of human corpses.

The odd thing about such a claim (besides being just a baseless assumption), is that the 484 blockade in not even as deep as the human remains are in 483. Shouldn't they be at the same depth? Not only that, but if a drill hits a blockade and can't go any further to take a core sample, it means that it would have to strike that blockade and make contact. So if it would make contact with an impenetrable blockade, the blockade is still technically a little bit exposed. So since it would be a little bit exposed, you would see what this blockade was. And if it was human remains, wax fat formation or not, you would still see it a little bit. Think about it. There is a difference between seeing something and not having a drill be able to penetrate it being a solid blockade and all. In other words, there is no proof that 484 would have reached a layer of human corpses. And this illustration of mine that I just had about blockades and how a blockade, if it were human corpses, would still be exposed and seen but just not penetrable, is a problem for Muehlenkamp. But that blockade in 484 isn't even labeled by Kola as a human corpse blockade. Muehlenkamp says it's just a blockade that prevented the reach to the human remains that were oh so obviously below the blockade. As Mattogno quoted Muehlenkamp as saying in 2006, the blockade is, "obviously by a layer of human corpses." :lol: Sorry, no baseless assumptions are allowed here.

Second of all, if a goddamn drill can't penetrate some blockade that is allegedly above a bunch of corpses, then how the hell could the nazis did this deep to put human remains in the first place? What technology were they using to bury the humans? What did the nazis do to the ground that made it impenetrable in some places and easy to penetrate in some others? :lol: The gas chamber/diesel engine mongers have never explained how the nazis with all their sneakiness involved in digging up corpses and burning them into ash at the rate of thousands an hour and therefore thousands a day, managed to mess up the ground so that it could never be successfully excavated by coring the ground and how people would run into blockades that would prevent them from getting to corpses?

shyster


So, where are the photos of Kola's rig on site at Belzec? I mean 6m is a long way down. You can't do that by hand, you need industrial machinery.

And what is this ridiculous photo of a 30cm soil sample? A bore hole sample goes all the way down through the stratas of the soil and rock. this is an issue LGR has raised previously).

Where is the evidence that Kola drilled these bore holes into the 'mass graves'? This photo of a 30cm sampler posted by Kola is an insult. Where's the machinery? Where's the drilling equipment? Where's the evidence?

Last Edited By: shyster 18-Jun-2009 20:19. Edited 1 time.

http:// r o d o h f o r u m . y u k u . c o m /topic/7079/t/What-the-hell-does-Kola-use-anyway.html


Unbelievable.

1 of the drills in grave # 20 visualized in Figure 16, which hit a corpse layer (a "positive" ratio of 100 %)

Do you mean 1042? If you do, what is this positive ratio you speak of being one hundred percent? There are plenty of core samples on that kola figure 16 that don't even have human remains labeled on them.

and the two drills in grave # 3, visualized in Figure 15, that hit human remains (286/XVI-90-40 and 332/XVI-85-40 – again a "positive" ratio of 100 %).

286 hits a blockade and there are no labels indicating human remains on it, and yet 332 hits no blockade and is labeled as having TOOH, HUMAN HAIR, WATER, HUMAN HAIR. Again, where is this positive ratio of one hundred percent? How can it mean anything when there are several samples taken from grave 3 with no human remains of any kind labeled on them? Continuing on with Muehlenkamp...

As I wrote in the original blog,

Without a mention of the varying depth of the drills and the apparent reasons for this (see Part 1)[45], Mattogno’s sensational statement: «Human remains are present in 3 out of 7 samples in grave 10, and in 1 out of 5 samples in grave 3 and grave 20. In these, the only three graves containing corpses, human remains were identified in 5 out of 17 samples, i.e., in fewer than 30% of these cases. Thus, from all 236 drilling samples, we have only 5 'positive' cases, that is, 2%!» looks like a deliberate attempt to mislead his readers, as Mattogno should have understood that the number of corpse layers hit by drillings does not necessarily allow for conclusions about the number or extension of actually existing corpse layers.


Let's go over grave 10 again.
http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c166/ ... gure13.jpg
Sorry, but Mattogno was simply going by the words on the kola diagram. 483, 484 and 486. Your complaining that the samples such as 487 and 488 that are only half the size of other samples because they hit blockades, would be bound to hit corpse layers, is simply a faith based argument, not a scientific one. Secondly, my questions from above apply once again? Once these blockades get struck, they would be a bit exposed to at least see what these blockades are made of, human remains or not. Second of all, if drills can't get past these blockades, how could the nazis dig this deep decades ago to hide human remains? What were the Nazis doing so differently, that modern technology can't surpass or even come equal to? Once again, holocaust mongers are silent when their non scientific, faith based assertions are brought into the arena of reason and logic.

How does Mattogno try to justify his false juxtapositions?

How does Muehlenkamp justify these faith based initiatives about what really lies below core samples that are too shallow as actual science?

He confirms the fact that not all drillings were so deep that they could even have hit layers of corpses, which as a rule were at the bottoms of the graves, but claims that in the context of his critique this is of no importance whatsoever.

If Mattogno made this concession to you, that was his problem and it will make him look more foolish.

Why is it supposed to be of no importance? Because Kola’s book has been adopted by "holo-propagandists" as material proof of the "presumed extermination of Jews" at Belzec and that was the only reason why he decided to "examine" and "refute" it, Mattogno tells us. As the "holo-propagandists" have only invoked what Kola has published in his book, and not what he has not published, Mattogno addressed only what has been published.

This his hardly a justification for a false juxtaposition between the number of "positive" drills and the number of core samples visualized in Kola’s book,

No, here is the real reason for lack of importance as you put it. It is not important, because these core samples that Mattogno left out when he said only 3 of the 7 samples from grave 10 had human remains, didn't in fact contain human remains and that pissed you off. So what you did was say that the core samples that hit a blockade and were really shallow would have hit human remains anyway. The only way you can justify such a faith based leap is to say, "Oh come on. It would have hit human remains past the blockade. We're in the same grave site and we already have core samples with human remains so it's very likely it would have done so." But that's not science. Second of all, that kind of logic betrays Kola's visual depictions that dig really deep and still hit no human remains. Look here for an example of what I mean when I say that.
http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c166/ ... gure14.jpg

not to mention the blatantly dishonest juxtaposition of "positive" drills on the one hand and the total number of drills in mass graves, especially as the latter is based on the obviously false claim that only the drills visualized in Prof. Kola’s book as having found corpse layers or (larger) human remains actually found such layers or remains.

So are you now flip flopping and saying that Kola's depictions are not reliable? That some of his depictions as having found corpse layers may not have actually found corpse layers? Are you questioning Kola's depictions that don't have any video or photo behind them? Are you a closet revisionist? Are you coming out of the cloest? :lol:

What is more, by his own criterion of taking into account only what Kola has published and not what he has not, Mattogno should also have taken into account the detailed descriptions of mass graves in which human remains were found, which are quoted in my original blog.

Yeah I'm sure that's in part three or four. What are they based on? I thought there were no photos or videos behind these core samples? Are your detailed descrptions based on something else? Like maybe Kola's book? So are you flip flopping again and saying Kola is now reliable?

To my above-quoted indictment of having tried to mislead his readers by making it look like only 5 out of 236 core drills in mass graves came upon human remains, Mattogno responds by mirror-imaging that indictment and accusing me of deliberately misleading my readers. Why am I supposed to be deliberately misleading my readers? Because I'm supposed to have known or realized that Mattogno’s "analysis" was a response to the declarations about this subject by who he calls the "maximum Holocaust experts on Belzec", Robin O’Neill and Michael Tregenza, who respectively spoke of "many thousands" and "at least 15,000" corpses still lying in the Belzec mass graves.

And what the hell are they basing this on? I don't know myself.

As for the five samples, you pointed out earlier Mattogno really meant to say, or should have said six. But this is based on him solely going on the labels put on those core samples in those kola descrpitions. But that isn't good enough for you since you claim that samples that hit blockades would have eventually hit human remains.

If refuting O'Neill and Tregenza had really been Mattogno’s only or primary intention, then why did he restrict his "analysis" to the core samples visualized in Prof. Kola’s book, instead of also taking into account the detailed descriptions of the mass graves in the same book?

Yep, just as I suspected above, these DETAILED DESCRIPTIONS come from Kola. But getting back to the start of this quote...

He obviously is, as he derisively contrasts my statement "the number of corpse layers hit by drillings does not necessarily allow for conclusions about the number or extension of actually existing corpse layers"

Okay now I see what you are getting upset about. It's related to something discussed earlier. How Mattogno didn't realize that not all of these 137 samples came from graves. And therefore he shouldn't have said these were the most significant samples. And because of THAT, therefore he shouldn't have made the statement that only 5 samples (you corrected it to 6 Muehlenkamp) had human remains out of the 236. Because you are saying Roberto that this ratio of Carlo's assumes that the 6 is being compared to every sample taken that could have had human remains in it. But you are saying it is not since not even in these 137 are all samples taken from graves. You showed how Mattogno made a mistake earlier when he implied with two passages on page 71 and 77 of his book that the 137 samples came from 236 that were supposed to be all grave samples. But that was not the case and you busted mattogno on it.

Now I see what this is all about. You are restating your claim about Mattogno making a false comparison and a false ratio. I granted that earlier. But once again, where is the proof of what Kola put in his book? Videos? Photos? You do realize that you and Mattogno are only debating about whta Kola wrote in his book and both you two are taking it for granted and are thus resting on a certain foundation. And that all someone like Hannover can do, or has done, is come along and attack that whole foundation, causing you to fall to the ground; thus rendering what you guys were doing on this already problematic foundation, "a pointless and distracting pissing contest concerning human remains which do not exist, like the old 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin' debate. Not one example of human remains has, or can be shown. Mattogno accepts, without reason, that Kola has found some human remains, when in fact Kola has found none. If Kola had found real human remains he would have shown them, he does not, he will not, he cannot.
Last edited by Drew J on Fri Jul 17, 2009 4:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests