His scientific evidence is debunked by photographs according to the link. His scientific evidence is also deemed as false because of claims that the grounds kept being dug up. Krege's results show that the ground was never disturbed by a human.
Sounds like (((they))) want to keep this guys books unpublished and buried.
Your link reminds of a link some other user presented to me here when trying to convince me that the official narrative for Auschwitz is correct. In the two replies I made to his comment I tried to go through the individual points within the article and show why they are not solid enough to be used to debunk the revisionist claims.
In your article the only two claims they have against Krege's results are 40s photographs and claims from Jews. I've seen enough doctored photographs from the 40s and I've heard enough Jews lie through their teeth about the Holocaust (while other Jews from the same camps directly contradicted the) to not be willing to accept either claims or photographs as solid evidence for anything concerning that time period. They can be considered and discussed, but I won't accept them as proof.
Your article also says that a newer use of GPR technology found different results than Krege -- but this study was never published, while Krege's study was (though at a holocaust denial group, and not anything large or formal -- as if anything large or formal would publish it even if it was accurate).
In short your article is meaningless and the only evidence I'm interested in seeing is the raw data Krege gathered and the raw data the team in 2010 gathered.
I'm not saying either side is correct. They both have a story and neither is willing to provide any proof. One side used a machine to check the ground and says it was never touched. The other side used the same type of machine and says there may have been a grave over there. But look at these pictures we have which make it true.
Where is the machine data? That will show us that the ground is littered with bones like they say.
I'm not going to argue who is correct, because both are wrong by withholding their findings.
For some reason I thought the guy was killed after his study, so I looked him up. came across a couple articles the post is talking about, which are all pretty much the same.
I don't know if you like documentaries, however here is the movie "The Treblenka Archeology Hoax" which should answer some of your questions. https://youtu.be/eRwIQpVrvpQ
They both have a story and neither is willing to provide any proof. One side used a machine to check the ground and says it was never touched. The other side used the same type of machine and says there may have been a grave over there. But look at these pictures we have which make it true.
What happens when you use their supposed findings and a little math to prove them wrong?
I've been to towns in New England (USA) that had massacres due to fights with Indians. You can see burial pits that rise over your head that are supposed to contain 50 to 80 people. There's even people that have found human bones while wandering the areas.
Then there's places like Cheesman park that used to be a cemetery and theyre still finding bodies in 2016 and I think one was found this year.
Neither party provided any findings, but with what's told that happened on that site. There should be bones that can be easily found with or without a machine.
I wasn't saying you aligned yourself with the article; I only said "your article" because you provided it. I agree neither side has any real proof (unless one or both sides have actually made their data available, but this article implies neither have).
view the rest of the comments →
Mr_Wolf ago
I had to look up Richard Krege, I thought the guy was dead
https://www.hdot.org/debunking-denial/or7-krege-investigation/
His scientific evidence is debunked by photographs according to the link. His scientific evidence is also deemed as false because of claims that the grounds kept being dug up. Krege's results show that the ground was never disturbed by a human.
Sounds like (((they))) want to keep this guys books unpublished and buried.
10047143? ago
Your link reminds of a link some other user presented to me here when trying to convince me that the official narrative for Auschwitz is correct. In the two replies I made to his comment I tried to go through the individual points within the article and show why they are not solid enough to be used to debunk the revisionist claims.
In your article the only two claims they have against Krege's results are 40s photographs and claims from Jews. I've seen enough doctored photographs from the 40s and I've heard enough Jews lie through their teeth about the Holocaust (while other Jews from the same camps directly contradicted the) to not be willing to accept either claims or photographs as solid evidence for anything concerning that time period. They can be considered and discussed, but I won't accept them as proof.
Your article also says that a newer use of GPR technology found different results than Krege -- but this study was never published, while Krege's study was (though at a holocaust denial group, and not anything large or formal -- as if anything large or formal would publish it even if it was accurate).
In short your article is meaningless and the only evidence I'm interested in seeing is the raw data Krege gathered and the raw data the team in 2010 gathered.
Mr_Wolf ago
I'm not saying either side is correct. They both have a story and neither is willing to provide any proof. One side used a machine to check the ground and says it was never touched. The other side used the same type of machine and says there may have been a grave over there. But look at these pictures we have which make it true.
Where is the machine data? That will show us that the ground is littered with bones like they say.
I'm not going to argue who is correct, because both are wrong by withholding their findings.
For some reason I thought the guy was killed after his study, so I looked him up. came across a couple articles the post is talking about, which are all pretty much the same.
EllenPaosEgo ago
I don't know if you like documentaries, however here is the movie "The Treblenka Archeology Hoax" which should answer some of your questions. https://youtu.be/eRwIQpVrvpQ
Crensch ago
What happens when you use their supposed findings and a little math to prove them wrong?
https://voat.co/v/JuiceTown/2036911/10046834/10#10046834
Mr_Wolf ago
I've been to towns in New England (USA) that had massacres due to fights with Indians. You can see burial pits that rise over your head that are supposed to contain 50 to 80 people. There's even people that have found human bones while wandering the areas.
Then there's places like Cheesman park that used to be a cemetery and theyre still finding bodies in 2016 and I think one was found this year.
Neither party provided any findings, but with what's told that happened on that site. There should be bones that can be easily found with or without a machine.
10047292? ago
I wasn't saying you aligned yourself with the article; I only said "your article" because you provided it. I agree neither side has any real proof (unless one or both sides have actually made their data available, but this article implies neither have).