18th April 20:54
Impossibility of Holocaust Trenches @ Auschwitz - An Examination (false history reality image 350)
While seeking my identity I located this exchange of thoughts
originating about 1997..
Hopefully messrs Carpenter, Ceacca,Karmasyn, Moran and Morrison will
not mind this repost along with my questions and comments enclosed in
Clearly, certified revisions have reduced the number of Jewish deaths
at Auschwitz from four million to about a million. A Jewish sponsored
report from a Mr Pressac reduces this amount to less than 700,00.
Also, the famous Holocaust historian, researcher, author and
Princeton Professor Arno Meyer states that more people died from
natural causes than anything else. So, now we are down to less than
350,000 Jewish deaths.
We also know that the tiny cremation retorts could not even handle the
typhus deaths. Which brings us to the burning trenches.
The question now, is; how did these trenches function and what was
the capacity? Read on.
Here it is. We can notice that Morrison gives us an image of
intellectual grandness going on about the geological history and all.
We can see also that Morrison cites right away the phony 'Hydrokop
Report' which is totally useless and which was probably never
performed and absolutely never found anything. It is impossible to get
a full accounting of this report.
[[ Has anyone seen this report? Where is it? Why is it not available
The only thing there is one
paragraph cited by Piper in 'Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp'.
As for where Morrison gets to going on about the clay and all being
impregnable to water saturation? Well in the same breath he goes on
about the camp being there because there was a good source of sand for
[[ this is impossible. Clayey soils can NOT be used as aggregate in
concrete. Material containing very small amounts of clay can be used
in the manufacture of Portland cement, however. Does anyone know of
cement plants in the area?]]
Morrison would have us believe that the area is some kind of hard pack
that wouldn't allow any water to saturate below when in fact where
ever we find clay in temperate non-desert zones we find it saturated
Morrison says below, "As stated southern swamps are low lying areas
that have a river running through them (or in the case of the Florida
Everglades, actually form one wide river themselves). Swamps,
such as that at Auschwitz, are caused by pour drainage." The fact is
Southern Florida is underlayed with a solid rock called cocina yet
where ever a road is made, and not necessarily in the Glades a
drainage ditch is cut along side and always, like in always these
ditches have water in them.
[[this is true - the road bed comes from the oolitic limestone]]
There was considerable agriculture in the Auschwitz-Birkenau area,
even right up to and along the perimeters of the camp. What kind of
agricultural growth do we get out of solid clay? Not much.
[[ this is true, minute quantities of clay contain essential
micro-nutrients beneficial to growing. But clay based soils is the
bane of growers]]
Hell, there are even Holocaust testimonies that tell us the first pit
burial of bodies, some tens to hundreds of thousands were buried in
the fields and they floated to the surface.
[[ due to water pressure, bodies could migrate to the surface]]
When it comes to the Holocaust cremation in pit stories they are
sitting ducks for debunking.
[[ the stories that do not conform to reality are patiently false]]
From: Keith Morrison (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Subject: The Auschwitz Burning Pits: Deniers Blow Smoke (There's a
shock) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Swamp Gas: Holocaust Deniers and Their Unique Interpretation
of the Geology of Auschwitz
Keith Morrison, B.Sc, (Geol)
One comment that has recently (May, 1997) made the rounds of
Holocaust denier circles is based on a piece of alleged common
sense that "proves" some aspects of evidence about what
occurred at Auschwitz does not obey physical laws. To be
specific, Holocaust deniers will claim that testimony regarding
burning pits or massive burial pits can not be real as, they will
state with self-assuredness, the camp was built in a swamp,
therefore any hole would fill with water, ergo the description of
a hole that was used as a burning pit must be fake as such holes
are clearly impossible.
[[ No technical report or investigation would begin with the paragraph
above. It reeks with bias and causes the remainder to be observed
with a jaundiced eye]]
This is an investigation of such claims based on an immutable
fact that all the deniers or advocates in the world cannot change
and that is the ground itself. They may argue over the meaning
of words and claim forgery for material that is not agreed with
but the rock will speak to those who can listen and the rock is
not subject to torture, intimidation and (salted drill core aside)
forgery. Therefore this article will focus on the geology of
Auschwitz and whether the ground speaks for those who accept
the Holocaust or those who deny it.
[[ The above second paragraph would result in a student getting a
For those who want to use the question of swamps and holes to
break up the history of the Holocaust you must find somewhere
else to do it. Science does not support your "common sense".
[[ Another fallacy. The razor specifically points to common sense]]
The pits in question are those described by the following
In 1965, Hydrokop, a chemical mining enterprise based
in Krakow, was commissioned by the
Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum to carry
out geological tests at Birkenau aimed at determining the
locations of incineration pits and pyres. Specialists of
Hydrokop bored 303 holes up to 3 m deep. Traces of
human ashes, bones, and hair turned up in 42 sites.
Do***entation of all the holes and the diagrams of their
distribution are preserved in the Conservation
Department of the Museum.
[[ Unfortunately, the Hydrokop Report is not to be found and therefore
not subject to peer review.]]
Typical of the reactions to material such as this is the following
posting to alt.revisionism by Chris Carpenter:
I understand that the A/B complex was built on a swamp.
Even with drainage ditches, the water is still very close to
the surface. This condition would make it difficult to dig
burning pits as described in the literature. There seems
to be a conflict between the earths natural forces and
[[ The above paragraph conforms to the razor.]]
This question, after some debate, was responded to by the
following supportive post from "Ceacaa":
Mr. Carpenter raises a good point based on an
intellegent observation of simple physics. Too bad
Mark (the Hoaxter Jokester) has to respond with
his typical drivel horror stories. If V****stine would
bother to read some of Soviet propaganda stories he
would have us believe, he would learn that Mr.
Carpenter's point is supported by "testimony" as well as
by science and logic.
Sadly (for them), "science and logic" are not only unsupportive
of Mr. Carpenter's point but actively disputes it. This author
leaves it to others to demonstrate how "Ceacaa's" reference to
testimony supporting his position is not only taken out of
context but blatantly so.
[[ No legitimate technical report or investigation contains verbiage
of this type.]]
An introduction of the geology of the Auschwitz area begins
with the ground that the camp stands on. According to _Zarys
Geologii Polski_ the area of Auschwitz is underlain by Miocene
marine sediments that were deposited in the area north of the
Carpathian Mountains. This deposition was due to
downwarping of the area  which allowed marine transgression
during the Miocene (25 to 4 million years ago) and deposited
clay layers 40-70 meters thick.
The next major geological event was the period colloquially
known as "The Ice Age". For the Auschwitz area the dominant
glaciation was the Preicenian-Danube (Pretegelen) Glaciation
during the Quaternary (0 to 2 million years ago) that emplaced
glaciofluvial and glaciolacustrine deposits 25-75 meters thick.
Now to take a moment and explain some concepts that become
rather important. Glaciofluvial, deposits, as defined by the
American Geological Institute in their _Dictionary of Geological
Terms, Third Edition_, are
Pertaining to meltwater streams flowing from glaciers
or to the deposits made by such streams
and glaciolacustrine deposits are
Pertaining to, derived from, or deposited in glacial lakes
Glaciofluvial deposits are characterized by sands and gravels,
glaciolacustrine by finely layered clays. Clays are, generally
speaking, impervious to water which is why landfill commissions
in New Brunswick seek areas underlain by clay deposits in order
to prevent subsurface runoff of contaminated water into the
natural water table.
[[ This is good background.]]
Now let us apply this knowledge to Auschwitz.
[[Mr Morrison is dishing out some hocus pocus]]
One of the reasons Auschwitz was constructed where it was
involved ready access to materials needed to make concrete to
be used in the buildings and in the industrial areas. The area was
known for its sand and gravel pits  which are typically found
in thick areas of glaciofluvial deposit and indeed just north of the
town of Auschwitz is the path of a long-dried up river that
carried glacial outwash directly toward the town from the north.
[[ There could be layers of sand, but topo maps from that area and the
location of the rivers on either side of Auschwitz and previous data
are indicative of clayey soils.]]
This indicates that the area of Auschwitz itself was under
water as meltwater from the glaciers flowed south and was
trapped against the foothills of the Carpathian Mountains,
therefore glaciolacustrine deposits, mostly clays, would have
been deposited in the area of the camp itself. This is in fact
verified as there is 200 feet (61 meters) of impermeable marl
beneath the camp.
As an aside marl is a mostly-abandoned term for clay with
limestone fragments and some accessory minerals, sometimes
used as a fertilizer in acidic soils (the lime neutralizes the
[[ Marl commonly consists of CaO with small amounts of other
The study commissioned by the Nazi government by Zunker 
noted that the area was wet and swampy and this has caused the
confusion, intentional or not, as to what this really means.
[[ The Zunker Reports are closely held and can't be located.]]
A swamp in a formerly glaciated terrain, or northern countries,
does not mean the same thing as a swamp in Louisiana or
Florida. In those areas swamps are low-lying areas that are
permanently wet. In the north a swamp is also wet but it is not
necessarily low-lying. The author has been in alder swamps
perched halfway up the side of a mountain. The difference
between these swamps and southern swamps is how they
formed. As stated southern swamps are low lying areas that
have a river running through them (or in the case of the Florida
Everglades, actually form one wide river themselves).
[[ It is unknown why the Florida Everglades are brought into his
such as that at Auschwitz, are caused by pour drainage.
At Auschwitz the impermeable clay soil did not allow water to
drain out, thus it was trapped at surface and could not drain
either into the ground and the water table or into the nearby
[[This above is okay except for the fact that topo maps reveal that
Auschwitz is on lowlands located between two rivers. ie: during the
wet season the rivers are higher than the land in between.]]
The effect can be simulated by taking a lump of child's
modeling clay and forming a little hill with a small depression
and then pouring water over it. The water will collect in the
depression while the remainder that falls outside will drain away.
To dry out this micro-swamp there must be a crack
(imperfection) in the material holding the water, the water must
evaporate or you may cut the side of the swamp and let the
water drain away.
This last option (cut out the side of the depression to drain the
water) is used most frequently in cases of elevated swamps and
this is what occurred at Auschwitz.
[[ Reportedly, Zunker's recommendation was drainage pipes. However,
the Germans tabled it as being out of the question.]]
No one can seriously argue
that there were not drainage ditches. What deniers who try the
swampy argument fail to understand (intentionally or otherwise)
is that the source of water was not *in* the ground, it was
trapped *above* the ground. By providing drainage away from
the camp you prevent the water from pooling and thus you
eliminate the swamp. [[ Since Auschwitz is located on lowlands between
two rivers, there are three ways to get rid of it. 1)evaporation;
2) pumping into wells or downhill; 3) very large and deep retention
ponds.]] As the reason the water ac***ulated was
due to the impermeability of the soil to water in the first place,
once the area is drained you will not get any serious amount of
water coming up from below. Yes, holes will *eventually* fill
(to the water table) from water traveling through small
imperfections in the clay and from rain but the hole is in no
danger of becoming a pond within any reasonable period of time.
[[ This is false, the trenches would fill immediately if not sooner;
because Auschwitz is located on property lower than the two rivers on
either side. One remedial action would be construction of a coffer dam
around a trench and pump out the water. However, if this was done it
would have been clearly seen in the American air photos. Another
alternative would be slurry trenches, but they weren't invented yet.
Morrison forgot the first lesson of an apprentice plumber - water
flows down hill and payday is Friday.]]
Knowing this, the swamp argument used by Holocaust deniers
quickly loses any semblance of "proof" of anything. With some
basic geological knowledge a reasonable person can come to the
conclusion that you can indeed dig hole at Auschwitz and have it
stay free of water for a reasonable period. Arguments to the
contrary are based on either ignorance or unwillingness to let the
truth ruin a good lie.
[[ Morrison's report has no credibility, period. OTOH, his sourcing is
in good form.]]
 Piper, F. _Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp_, 179
 Carpenter, Chris (email@example.com). "Burning pit question" alt.revisionism 1997/04/09
 "Ceacaa" (firstname.lastname@example.org). "Re: Burning pit question"
alt.revisionism 1997/05/15 Message-Id: <19970515052601.BAA18268@ladder02.news.aol.com
 Ksiqzkiewicz, M., Samsonowicz, J. Ruhle, E. _Zarys
Geologii Polski_. Wydawnictwa Geoloiczne, 1965.
Trans. _An Outline of Geology of Poland_.
The Scientific Publication Foreign Cooperation
Center of the Central Institute for Scientific, Technical
and Economical Information, 1968. 46.
 Ksiqzkiewicz et al, 206.
 Ksiqzkiewicz et al, 208.
 Ksiqzkiewicz et al, 335, Fig. 40.
 _Dictionary of Geological Terms, Third Edition_. AGI,
 Sugden, D.E. and John, B.S. _Glaciers and Landscapes_
Edward Arnold, 1976.
 van Pelt, R.J. and Dwork, D. _Auschwitz 1270 to the
Present_. W.W. Norton and Co Inc, 1996. 174.
 Ksiqzkiewicz et al, 343, Fig. 42.
 van Pelt and Dwork, 191.
 van Pelt and Dwork, 192.
20th April 08:41
Impossibility of Holocaust Trenches @ Auschwitz - An Examination (numbers able discussion david)
In one age, called the Second Age by some,
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
Amazing that you found this discussion, and not the responses that
were made to it, huh?
And clearly, this number was never taken seriously anywhere in the
West, so one has to wonder why it was included here...
Which Jews sponsored this report, and why would that matter? And
which report are you referring to?
No, david irving, proven liar and distorter of historical fact, claims
that Professor Meyer has so said: can you do***ent that he actually did?
As long as we rely on liars and numbers that have been known to be
wrong since shortly after the war...
And how do we know this?
Because you're not really looking for it? Check with the State Museum.
Because, of course, everyone knows that sand can never be found within
miles -- nay, continents, of clay...
As do***ented by ... ?
Which is not cocina. Wonder what other "facts" moran got wrong?
There's something we big kids like to call "topsoil" -- look into it.
Of course, one must demonstrate that they do not so conform -- a
little detail moran and chrissy both ignore...
Yes, but this was a post in a newsgroup, not a technical report. Does
this "reeks with bias" thing work both ways? If, for example, a
person refers to Kikes or Zionazis in their post?
For no rational reason that chrissy will explain...
chrissy gets to declare zir own logical fallacies, you see...
Wrong on both counts, chrissy...
Because chrissy says so...
Not being able to address the content, chrissy is reduced to
complaining about the language used to convey it.
What was that about "reeks with bias?"
And sand and clay cannot coexist on the same *planet* as each other...
And ... ? How is this different from what Keith said?
Not by chrissy, anyway...
As an example of the different type of swamp Keith was explaining
Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it?
So, you are claiming that Auschwitz is regularly flooded out?
And chrissy doesn't understand that zir claim means that the camp was
regularly completely under water.
chrissy uses yet another term zie is apparently completely unfamiliar