View Single Post
Old July 25th, 2008 #836
Greg Gerdes
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,129
Greg Gerdes


“What is visible in these samples is quite interesting. The color of the soil, judging by the soil surface visible on these photographs, is a light brown. Yet these samples show layers underground that are light gray and black:

The light gray substance on the first two photos looks like ashes of human bone and tissue to me. I’ve seen such ashes elsewhere, hence the association.

The black substance on the second photo looks like wood ash to me. There’s a gray streak in the middle of the black suggesting that some human ashes may be there as well.

The white substances on the third photo could be either bone ash or the lime that was poured upon the dead bodies in the mass graves.”

1 -

2 -

3 -

Roberta continues:

“How about ashes of human bone and tissue for the light gray stuff, wood ashes for the black stuff and pure bone ashes or lime for the white stuff, Mr. Gerdes?

Any other idea what those light grey, black and white substances in the light-brown soil of Sobibor might be, Mr. Gerdes? Let’s hear.

Try explaining why charred human remains and remains in a state of decay should be visible on any given core-drilling sample from mass graves that can be expected to largely or mostly contain cremains.

Bone ashes, ashes of soft tissue and crushed remains of ashed teeth were probably mixed with each other in most cases, but where larger calcinated bones were crushed the result would have been the substance known as bone ash.

Distinguishable layers made up only of the crushed remains of ashed teeth are far less likely for obvious reasons than layers consisting mostly or only of crushed calcinated bones.”

Thanks for that Roberta.

Have I ever told you you are priceless?

Now, let’s remind everyone what the mentally ill jewbitch wrote earlier:

Quote: Originally Posted by Gerdes

She hasn't been able to even prove that the "huge mass grave" of Sobibor exists;


Actually I’m able to prove the existence of all of these mass graves by simply referring to Prof. Kola’s description.”

Yes Roberta, could you tell us again what Kola “described” finding in the “huge mass graves” of Sobibor?


Proof is contained in Prof. Kola’s published report about his findings on site, and in the documentary and eyewitness evidence about the mass killings at Sobibor, which is compatible with Kola’s findings.”

And what were Kola’s findings again Roberta?


“This proof is and has been accepted by historians and criminal investigators, Gerdes. So unless you can show relevant rules or standards of evidence that these people did not comply with or strong indications of evidence manipulation, it is proof for the purpose of our discussion as well (and may even be considered proof for the purpose of meeting your "challenge" by a court of law, so better be more specific about what kind of proof you want – that’s well meaning advice)... Because Prof. Kola said so and there’s no reason to doubt the statements of this renowned archeologist, especially as they are also in line with what all other known evidence tells us about Sobibor… And the reason to doubt the archeologist’s public statement that would support this "allegedly" is? None? I thought so.”

And what did Kola say again Roberta?


IV. Sobibor

IV.2 Physical evidence

IV.2.1 Physical evidence described in a public statement by Prof. Kola about an archaeological excavation conducted at Sobibor in 2001, mentioned in a Reuters press release.

And tell us again what Kola claims he found in that press release Roberta?


“Any other idea what those light grey, black and white substances in the light-brown soil of Sobibor might be, Mr. Gerdes? Let’s hear.”

Better yet Roberta - why waste time talking about what my ideas might be?

What do the frauds at the Sobibor Archaeology Project say it is? They’re the ones who analysed the core samples – right? They DID analyse the core samples – DID THEY NOT – Roberta?

Thank you Roberta.