View Single Post
Old June 13th, 2008 #54
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Roberta:

"So while all associated evidence indicates that the photographs in question were not only taken at Treblinka, but... there are no indications known that the photos show anything other than parts of the Treblinka site in 1945. Therefore, it is not me who has to prove that these photographs were actually taken at Treblinka. It is Gerdes who has to prove that... the photos were not actually taken at Treblinka."

Then you will have no trouble at all proving that those 7 photos in posts # 46 & 47 were taken at / in Treblinka and the alleged graves you claim to have located on the aerial photo are in fact graves.
That's not even a nice try, Gerdes. All evidence associated to these ground photographs points to their having been taken at Treblinka while none points to another conclusion, so it can reasonably be considered proven that the photographs were taken at Treblinka. But I'm being generous and just pointing out that the burden of proof lies with who claims that the photographs are not what all associated evidence as well as their identification in the sources providing them show them to have been, which is you.

As to the aerial photo, it's also not my job to prove that these ground-scarring shapes are what they look like and what eyewitness testimonies suggest they were, i.e. mass graves. It is for who makes a claim at odds with these shapes' aspect and the evidence associated to this photograph – i.e. Gerdes, who claims that these shapes are something other than mass graves – to tell us what else they might be. If you can provide a plausible alternative explanation, namely one that is compatible with your "transit camp" theory, the ball may be in my court again. Until then, it is in yours.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Roberta:

"There are no indications known that the photos show anything other than parts of the Treblinka site in 1945."

The excavator photos were supposedly taken in 42 or 43, correct? What proof do you have they were taken in the alleged Treblinka death camp and not, as common sense would suggest, at the sand / gravel quarry .6 miles from Treblinka II?
Gerdes and common sense, what a joke! Actually common sense suggests that the deputy commandant of Treblinka II extermination camp would photograph things inside Treblinka II extermination camp and not a labor camp that he had nothing to do with. Besides, the excavator location on some of the ground photographs can be matched with the September 1944 air photograph of Treblinka II extermination camp:

Quote:
The photograph in Figure 36 was subjected to the same sort of measurements and graphical analysis described above in the section about the living camp. Measurements were made to determine the angular separation to all of the features of interest, and these were then
plotted on an overlay so that their positions could be established on the aerial photography. The camera's exposure station and the frame's coverage were established this way, as well as achieving the best fit of features in the ground picture to the aerial image (see Appendix A ). The results of this analysis are shown in Figure 38. In the figure, the angular coverage of Franz's camera is shown, and the elements in that picture are drawn in the relative positions determined from the measurements. The camera was computed to have been about 80 meters [262 feet] from the gate, and about 10 meters [32 feet] from the excavator.
http://www.holocaust-history.org/Tre...thcampp4.shtml
http://www.holocaust-history.org/Tre...Figure38.shtml

Quote:
If photography were available showing these features in their entirety, it would have been possible to measure the volume of the actual burial pits. As it is, the embankments as shown in Figure 42 are an educated guess. In Figure 43, the height of these piles can be judged. The Excavator is the Menck Mb2, which was 4 meters high. The earth works behind it is at least that high.
http://www.holocaust-history.org/Tre...thcampp7.shtml
http://www.holocaust-history.org/Tre...Figure42.shtml
http://www.holocaust-history.org/Tre...Figure43.shtml

Quote:
Another Kurt Franz photograph also contains images of probable ash heaps. This picture and an enlargement of it are shown in Figure D-2.

These piles are visible in three other snap shots taken by Franz. In all of them one can see the same sort of heaps. All the photos show members of the Jewish work force. Three of them can be seen at the right edge of the photograph. One is standing, two appear to be bent over. Theirs is the task of sieving for bones and of crushing the remnants. In another picture taken at the same position as the one above, but at a slightly different time is in Figure D-3. Here, the image of a driver and a horse is enlarged in the inset. This picture is of interest because it indicates that the method of transporting the ashes from the pits to the sites, where they were sieved, was some sort of cart or sled. This would make sense because a horse drawn conveyance would be much more efficient than transport by wheel barrow.

A mass grave can be seen close up in Figure D-1. It is evicent in the picture that the horizons caused by the layering of different colored soils. These horizons can also be seen in other Kurt Franz pictures and they serve to reveal grave pits at a greater distance. They can be seen in figures D4 and D5. An enlargement of the area in which layering can be seen may be found in Figure D-5. The white arrows in D4 point to a deep excavation. The two pictures in the figure compose an inadvertent stereo pair. Viewing the image in this mode permits one to see the small region common to the two images in relief. A nearly vertical wall rises in the v-shaped area framed by the soil being excavated. Layering can also be seen. Figure D5 is an enlargement and the entire extent of an excavation can be seen. In this image the layering is not really visible, although the rim of the excavation is easy to see. It turns out that the grave appearing in these last two figures is the same one.

All the locations and taking directions of the Kurt Franz snapshots were identified. This proved possible because of the tree line and fencing which was captured in all the pictures. For example in Figure D4, the black arrow indicates an easily recognized pine tree. This feature And the other nearby trees were used to align and position the individual frames to each other. In addition, the posts for the security fence line just in front of the tree line were visible in many of the pictures. These afforded a scaling measure, so that the cameras distance to the tree line could be roughly calculated. The results are shown in Figures D6 Through D8.
http://www.holocaust-history.org/Treblinka/appendixd/
http://www.holocaust-history.org/Tre...FigureD1.shtml
http://www.holocaust-history.org/Tre...FigureD2.shtml
http://www.holocaust-history.org/Tre...FigureD3.shtml
http://www.holocaust-history.org/Tre...FigureD4.shtml
http://www.holocaust-history.org/Tre...FigureD5.shtml
http://www.holocaust-history.org/Tre...FigureD6.shtml
http://www.holocaust-history.org/Tre...FigureD7.shtml
http://www.holocaust-history.org/Tre...FigureD8.shtml

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
And while you're at it, prove that the building in those excavator photos actually contains homicidal gas chambers.
Poor Gerdes, reduced to throwing around haphazard "prove" demands in his desperate urge to avoid addressing my questions and most of the evidence I have provided.

Proof that this is the gas chamber building can be provided by comparing the features visible on the photograph with features described by eyewitnesses, as was done by Alex Bay (see his assessment of Figures 36 and 37 under http://www.holocaust-history.org/Tre...thcampp4.shtml ). But before I start quoting eyewitness testimonies describing the gas chamber building, I’d like to know what Gerdes would accept as proof that the building shown under http://www.holocaust-history.org/Tre...Figure37.shtml is the gas chamber building.

What would be proof for you, and what rules and standards of evidence you can show us is your criterion based on, Mr. Gerdes?

This question will from now on be asked every time Gerdes yells for "proof" of this-and-that.