The "ground-penetrating radar" study

[Sam H.]

This thread was split from "Is all denier information as deeply researched as this?" at viewtopic.php?t=94837 and recaptioned bt the moderator. The post which started the original thread (at viewtopic.php?p=844023#844023 ) reads:

I was wandering through the Adelaide Institute website, looking for an update, a comment, anything on the ground penetrating radar study "allegedly" done in 1997.

http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/Though ... anuary.htm

I'd be interested if you found anything regarding the GPR "study" - it seems the author of the study has given up on it, while revisionist forums still hail it as scientific and "proof".

[sallyg]

I'd be interested if you found anything regarding the GPR "study" - it seems the author of the study has given up on it, while revisionist forums still hail it as scientific and "proof".

I can't find a thing and I've been looking. Other than a couple of scans posted on the web and one precis published in German the story I'm hearing is that the full report is "expected". It's been expected for what, 6 years?

I have some slight experience with GPS and the most commonly cited scan has serious problems. There are relections in some areas and not in others. Hmmm.

Sorry for going semi-off topic.

[alf]

There has been a post of this subject already a few years ago. Again strangley enough it is only the handful holocaust denial sites that trumpet this scienctific breakthrough. They promoted Richard Krege as an expert in this technology but by my recollection he was basically an electrician and not an expert in GPR.

Strangely enough they continued their tactic of bellowing loudly amongst themselves but never submitting any "evidence" for independent proof, shades of Rudlof and Irving's second appeal spring to mind.


Of course the Adelaide Institute and the Denial websites ignored the German Trials, and all the work being done on site over the years as "tainted". http://www.deathcamps.org/treblinka/treblinka.html

[sallyg]

I'd be interested if you found anything regarding the GPR "study" - it seems the author of the study has given up on it, while revisionist forums still hail it as scientific and "proof".

Well, if I have lattitude, now, since this has been split into its own thread I invite the viewers' attention to the original image presented to the world by Krege:
found here:
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/Treblink ... dscan.html
and a couple of images from a commercial GPR site; to wit:

and especially



Significant purturbation of the "A" or topsoil horizon is present and the inconsistent returns from the "B" or subsoil horizon certainly merits investigation. As an example of undisturbed soil, this fails any test.

Shalom

[David Thompson]

sallyg -- There is an interesting discussion of Krege's supposed study on the RODOH forum at: http://p102.ezboard.com/frodohforumfrm1 ... c&index=29

[michael mills]

I met Richard Craigie at his request some years ago, and he showed me a number of images such as the ones posted.

He told me that the further progress of his study depended on obtaining an analysis of the images from a recognised expert, but that money to fund such an analysis was a problem.

I recommended to him that before going public with his images, he should obtain a proper analysis to determine what they actually showed.

Second, I recommended that he needed to prove where exactly the images came from, ie that they did show areas in which it was claimed graves were located.

Third, I recommended that if was able to do both of the above, he should limit his claims to what the images actually demonstrated, ie that there were no graves in the areas of the Treblinka site that he actually surveyed. He could not make broader claims about the site as a whole, particularly about areas he had not surveyed.

Since then I have never encountered him, so I do not know whether he followed my advice or not.

[Obdicut]

Mr. Mills,

Since the images do show disturbance of the topsoil consistent with graves (in the most generous sense), I hope he didn't follow your advice.