The Big Excuse: 'excavation & exhumation of Jews forbidden'

[scythian]

IMO there are too many secular and atheist Jews to be sensitive about disturbing alleged burial sites due to religious reasons. If six million really died, it would be more important to identify each and every one of the victims using every possible means necessary. That would include any potential mass graves. The identity aspect has always disturbed me, even when I believed in the narrative. How can it be claimed that six million people died without knowing anything about them? Their names, their family, their friends, where they lived, where they worked. My dad would explain it by saying entire communities were lost and of course that's what they want you to think but that explanation doesn't stand up to facts.

If nobody knows who these people were (because they never existed in the first place) then how can they get offended for excavating alleged burial sites? The narrative doesn't even claim all the victims were Jews, what if some Polish family is interested about their missing family members and wants to do a forensic analysis on the alleged remains? They would be denied because (non-existent) Jewish law forbids it? Why would anybody expect anybody but religious Jews to respect their religious law? Not that it's even a law, I'm just saying...

[Hohenems]

There are a lot of secular and atheist Jews but they get really religious as far as the H is concerned. Anyway, there is Jewish religious law that forbids the opening of graves. See http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/heritage.html

You make a good point that there's no way of knowing for sure that the bodies, if there are any, are Jewish before the grave is opened in the first place. Of course, any remains could be subjected to y-chromosomal and mitochondrial DNA testing to at least determine whether the remains match the predominant haplotypes among the Jews native to these areas. I wonder if anyone's ever suggested this.

[Hannover]

I lifted this from viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7707

On the supposed Jewish Halakha law referred to by Sturdy-Colls, there are actually articles in Encyclopaedia Judaica on exhumation and disinterment. There is no unconditional law against disturbing human remains, although it is the general rule. In Jewish Virtual Library:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... 05253.html
We find:
"Jewish law forbids the transfer of a dead body or of remnant bones from one grave to another, even when it is to a more respected site [...] This traditional prohibition is, however, lifted in the following cases: [...] (c) The body of a Jew interred in a gentile cemetery may be exhumed for reburial in a Jewish cemetery. (d) Where a grave is in danger of water seepage or if it is not safe against robbers, etc., transfer is permitted. [...]

In modern times, urban planning and the construction of railroads, highways, etc., frequently encroach on cemetery sites, necessitating disinterment by order of the authorities. Most halakhic authorities permit the transfer of the dead on condition that decent repose for the deceased is provided."

The so called "law" is all over the place, but at minimum, according to this quote, any alleged 'holocaust' remains could be examined and re-buried in the same location. Except, no 'holocaust' remains as alleged can be shown.

- Hannover

[Hannover]

Hohenems said:

There are a lot of secular and atheist Jews but they get really religious as far as the H is concerned.

No, they get really nervous "as far as the H is concerned" because they know the mass graves as alleged do not exist.

- Hannover

[scythian]

Hohenems said:

There are a lot of secular and atheist Jews but they get really religious as far as the H is concerned.

No, they get really nervous "as far as the H is concerned" because they know the mass graves as alleged do not exist.

- Hannover

And now that I think about it, there was a news story last year about some ongoing 'excavation' near Sobibor. I remember reading a thread here on it too. Besides the fact that neither their evidence or a report (as of yet anyways, AFAIK) accompanied their claims, I remember the Israeli man in charge of the excavation claiming that there was a lot more ashes (and hence a higher death toll) than originally thought. A lie of course, and he doesn't tell us how he was able to determine this either yet the media takes his word regardless. I bring this up because of the recent NYT "concentration camp on every street corner" piece. Maybe the two are not related, but both of them have attempted to make the holocaust narrative larger than it already is in recent times.

It's ironic how this sort of holocaust revision is tolerated when the only supporting proof is their word (much like the entire narrative actually, no physical evidence and a lot of inconsistent testimony). Yet when real revisionists present scientific facts backing their claims, they risk being imprisoned (depending on where they live).

Anyways, both of these stories luckily fell on deaf ears. I'm really hoping the West is having holocaust fatigue or they just don't care. I know the internet has got a lot more people talking about in just the past few years (especially the movie '1/3 of the holocaust'). What worries me is the potential for further fraud, such as the Sobibor guy adding ashes and creating facts on the ground. I'm sure there are dead bodies there, but none from gassing and nothing approaching the alleged death toll (and not exclusively Jewish either).

[truth]

If there would be any true evidence, they would be eager to get to the core of the matter. This is all baloney. The excuse is cheap: Religious laws get broken every day. They matter only when it gives an advantage.

[Werd]

This one comes from Aktion Reinhardt Camps / Holo. Controversies Debunked Again! by yours truly.

Muehlenkamp f___s up again II
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... no_20.html

Mattogno then tries to make the point that the purpose of Prof. Kola’s investigations essentially consisted in obtaining archaeological and historical information (and not in pinpointing mass grave areas so as to avoid their disturbance during museum construction) by quoting Prof. Kola to the effect that the general purpose of the project had been to "obtain the basic knowledge of how the camp had been planned, particularly to establish where the mass graves had been located". The quote is taken out of a context that, contrary to Mattogno’s argument, does not contradict the statement of Miles Lerman[38]:

The architectural elements commemorating the camp in Bełżec, mainly as the enclosure and the monument require changes at present. The Council of Protection of Memory of Combat and Martyrdom (Rada Ochrony Pamięci Walk i Męczeństwa - ROPWiM) in Warsaw together with the United States Holocaust Memorial Council and the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington have decided to take up new actions to commemorate the camp. The general purpose, essential for the project works taken up already, is to obtain the basic knowledge of how the camp had been planned, particularly to establish where the mass graves had been located.


As one can see, Kola was referring to his employers and the commemoration purpose of their "new actions". Obtaining "basic knowledge of how the camp had been planned", and particularly to "establish where the mass graves had been located", served that commemoration purpose.

No matter how much Muehlenkamp wants to pretend, the result of Kola's work would have been obtaining exactly what mattogno claims was the real intention. Does Muehlenkamp really expect us to believe that by openly stating that they just wanted to make a memorial and commemoration, they weren't going to try and figure out where the graves were so as not to desecrate them? One comes with the other, Roberto. You can't seperate them. They were killing two birds with one stone and to pretend otherwise is an intentional lie or worse, self delusion. I can't believe Roberto is still beating this dead horse that Mattogno already took out back and shot years ago. Mattogno even says on page 1085 (paperback), "even though the excavations are said to have been ordered for museal purposes, this would not change anything, because their findings have been used by Kola for his topographical aims."
And.

Mattogno makes the point that Prof. Kola’s book "presents itself as an archeological book with historiographical claims", describing finds "which would have been completely unnecessary for mere museal purposes". This indeed suggests that – as already mentioned in the critique[44] – a broader archaeological investigation eventually resulted from the initial purpose under a "as we’re at it, les us also …" perspective, as Prof. Kola expressly pointed out when writing that the archaeological works in the Bełżec camp area, which "had originally the only aim to locate the mass graves by probing drills", revealed structures that "opened a chance to widen the research programme" into one that involved reconstructing the camp buildings and establishing the function of located objects[45]. However, as already pointed out[46], this doesn’t validate Mattogno’s conjectures and insinuations. For independently of whether identifying the mass grave areas was Kola's only task or he was eventually also commissioned to attempt an archaeological reconstruction of the camp’s buildings (and independently of whether all information about the mass graves included in Prof. Kola’s report was necessary for the planning and construction of the memorial), the archaeologist was bound by his employers' religiously motivated concerns about disturbing the dead to keep physical contact with human remains to the minimum indispensable for identifying the areas containing such remains.

Mattogno therefore needs further arguments to substantiate what I appropriately called his conspiracy theory. Mattogno balks at the term ("This phantom ‘conspiracy theory’ is a real obsession for the ‘plagiarist bloggers.’" - p. 1207), apparently oblivious of his claims of a false pretext and un-confessed ulterior motives, quoted hereafter: [47]

This only confirms my assertion: that the primary goal was to locate the mass graves. The real issue here is the purpose behind the attempt to identify the mass graves. The official explanation, that of the new memorial, is clearly deceptive. [...] It is clear that the story of the memorial is merely a pretext, allowing for a thorough examination of the entire camp area in the hope of localizing mass graves (presumably able to contain 600,000 corpses) and archeological remains (of the alleged gassing installations) that would provide material evidence for the alleged exterminations at Bełżec, and thus silence historical revisionists. When the results of the surveys failed to meet these expectations, the team fell back on the official alibi of the memorial: human remains had not been searched for and the minor remains discovered could eventually not be exhumated for "moral" reasons.


(Emphases added.)

If the above-quoted conjectures don’t qualify as a conspiracy theory, I don’t know what does.

Using the old ad hominem fallacy, Muehlenkamp thinks he has refuted a conspiracy theory simply by calling it a conspiracy theory.
Next.

Mattogno argues that the rulings of Orthodox Jewish courts mentioned by Father Patrick Desbois[48], whereby the remains of victims of the Nazi genocide should be left in peace, have not prevented Desbois from "opening a mass grave and to expose human bones (Illustration 11.11), and then to take a picture on its edge (Illustration 11.12)". The illustrations show Father Desbois by a mass execution site uncovered at Busk in the L’viv region of Ukraine, in which a layer of skeletons has been laid bare. Desbois described the Busk excavations in great detail, expressly mentioning the constraints due to Jewish religious laws under which his team was forced to work[49]:

The challenge was doubly complex. On the one hand we had to respect Jewish laws and on the other hand we wanted to obtain scientific results as precise as possible in terms of the identity of the victims, their number, and the cause of death. The Jewish law, the Halakha, specifies that bodies must not be moved under any circumstances, particularly the victims of the Holocaust. According to Orthodox Jewish tradition, these victims are resting in the fullness of God, and any movement of the bodies would disturb that peace. Hence the archaeologist could only uncover the first layer of bodies, taking care not to move any bones. In addition, the bodies had to be covered up again as soon as the archaeologist finished working.


(Emphasis added.)

Mattogno either didn’t read Desbois’ book or omitted the above information on account of its inconvenience to his argument.


Why, one might ask, is excavation of human remains at extermination camp sites not allowed by Orthodox Jews although Father Desbois was allowed to conduct the excavations at Busk? A possible reason is that digging without dislocation of human remains (thus in compliance with Halakha) was possible at a place like Busk, which contained whole skeletons. At places where human remains mostly consist of ashes and smaller or larger bone fragments mixed with soil, on the other hand, every spade movement would imply dislocating human remains and thus violating Jewish law.

Roberto Muehlenkamp admits that religion takes precedence over science and expects us to believe Debois without evidence there were several layers of corpses. This looks bad for the holocaust believers, not revisionists who point it out.

This argument fails to take into account a source pointed out by Mattogno himself in an earlier publication[52], namely the article "Exhuming the Dead" by Rabbi Myron S. Geller[53]. Geller summarizes the applicable rules as follows:

From the perspective of halakhah, the removal of remains from a grave is generally barred because of concern for the dignity of the dead. Under certain circumstances, remains may be transferred:
A. to move the remains to a family burial plot;
B. to move the remains to Eretz Yisrael;
C. for the security of the remains against vandalism or natural catastrophe;
D. for public need; or,
E. if the remains were buried in a plot belonging to someone else.


Exception A - "to move the remains to a family burial plot" is obviously the reason why corpses of murdered Jews were exhumed from the mass graves into which their killers had buried them and transferred to the local Jewish cemetery. For Jews from a certain location murdered at or near that location, the location’s Jewish cemetery would be the "family burial plot", the place where their ancestors and other members of their extended family had been buried. But how was anyone to tell, from the partial remains saturating the soil of Bełżec, Sobibór and Treblinka, which remains belonged to what "family burial plot"? Impossible. And because it was impossible to determine what "family burial plots" the remains in the soil of the extermination camps should be transferred to (as concerns remains other than corpses in wax-fat transformation, it was even impossible to establish what specific human being these remains pertained to), exhumation under Exception A to the Halakhah rules (the only one that could have applied) was out of the question. Thus Mattogno’s examples don’t support his argument.


[52]"LE ULTERIORI CONTROVERSIE OLOCAUSTICHE DI ROBERTO MUEHLENKAMP Parte I.", now under [link], commented in the article "Belzec Mass Graves and Archaeology - Continuation (1)" ([link]).
[53] Online under [link].

I have the paperback in front of me now by MGK and every example Mattogno quotes is talking about whole bodies. On page 1087, Mattogno mentions a case near Iasi (Romania). 311 bodies were exhumed and put into three large common graves in the Jewish cemetary. Muehlenkamp wins on this one. Or does he? Let's jump back to a quote he took from Debois and added bold text to.

The challenge was doubly complex. On the one hand we had to respect Jewish laws and on the other hand we wanted to obtain scientific results as precise as possible in terms of the identity of the victims, their number, and the cause of death. The Jewish law, the Halakha, specifies that bodies must not be moved under any circumstances, particularly the victims of the Holocaust. According to Orthodox Jewish tradition, these victims are resting in the fullness of God, and any movement of the bodies would disturb that peace. Hence the archaeologist could only uncover the first layer of bodies, taking care not to move any bones. In addition, the bodies had to be covered up again as soon as the archaeologist finished working.

Wait a minute. I thought that as long as bodies were intact they could be moved and reburied according to Rabbi Geller. Oh I know. Does Halakah as told to Debois only permit one to dig up the graves and look at the bodies but just not move them? I thought they weren't supposed to be disturbed AT ALL. Not according to Geller. Furthermore, Mattogno never cared about unidentifiable remains that were destroyed through immense decay or cremation. He only cited examples about CORPSES and SKELETONS. So this is a red herring. Let us see the Italian version of mattogno's article about Belzec.

http://studirevisionisti.myblog.it/2012/02/06/057-le-ulteriori-controversie-olocaustiche-di-roberto-muehle/



Egli si appella poi alla seguente affermazione del padre Desbois:

«Prendendo una carta gialla, Rabbi Schlesinger alzò gli occhi e mi spiegò in inglese che si era deciso che gli Ebrei assassinati dal Terzo Reich erano “tsadiqim”,“santi”, e che è stata assicurata loro la plenitudine della vita eterna. Per questo i loro luoghi di sepoltura, dovunque si trovino – sotto un’autostrada o in un giardino – devono restare intatti in modo da non disturbare i loro resti» (corsivo di Muehlenkamp).

Ciò però non è in contrasto con questa mia osservazione:

«Secondo la tradizione giudaica, l’Ebreo morto potrà essere giudicato, alla fine del mondo, soltanto a Gerusalemme, donde la credenza popolare che “ogni Ebreo che muore fuori della Palestina deve scavarsi con le unghie una galleria per arrivare a Gerusalemme” e proprio per questo al cadavere “si nettano con scrupolosa cura le unghie”. Tralasciando il rituale, l’inumazione “in terra d’Israele” rappresenta un desideratum per gli Ebrei, e se ciò non è possibile “si usa mettere un po’ di terra d’Israele sulla testa o sotto i corpi degli Ebrei sepolti nella diaspora”».

Infatti per il giudaismo è lecito esumare un cadavere[6] «per spostare i resti in Eretz Yisrael [nella terra d’Israele] [7].

Con tutto il rispetto per Rabbi Schlesinger, rilevo che la pratica dell’esumazione e la risepoltura di cadaveri di Ebrei uccisi dai Tedeschi non è stata affatto insolita dopo la fine della seconda guerra mondiale. Ecco qualche esempio.

This is divided into PARTS. This is from part one. Let's see the footnotes from part one with English translation via google.

He then appealed to the Father Desbois following statement:

"Taking a yellow card, Rabbi Schlesinger looked up and said in English to me that it had been decided that the Jews murdered by the Third Reich were" tsadiqim "," holy ", and was assured them the fullness of eternal life. Why their burial places, wherever they are - under a highway or in a garden - must remain intact so as not to disturb their remains "(the Muehlenkamp italics).

But this is not in conflict with my remark:

"According to Jewish tradition, the Jew dead will be judged at the end of the world, only in Jerusalem, whence the popular belief that" every Jew who dies outside Palestine must claw or a tunnel to get to Jerusalem "and its why the body "is Neptune with scrupulous care the nails". Aside from the ritual burial "in Israel's" land is a desideratum for the Jews, and if this is not possible "is used to put a little 'of the land of Israel on the head or buried under the bodies of the Jews in the Diaspora "».

In fact, for Judaism it is permissible to exhume a corpse [6] "to move the remains to Eretz Yisrael [the Land of Israel] [7].

With all due respect to Rabbi Schlesinger, I note that the practice of the exhumation and reburial of the bodies of Jews killed by the Germans was not at all unusual since the end of World War II. Here are some examples.

[6] Rabbi Myron S. Geller, Exhuming the dead http://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/ teshuvot/docs/19912000/ geller_exhuming.pdf

[7] Rabbi Myron S. Geller, Exhuming the dead http://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/ teshuvot/docs/19912000/ geller_exhuming.pdf

Clearly Mattogno was aware of exception B to move the remains to Eretz Yisrael. He was aware of the disagreement between rabbis in halakah. So Roberto's objection is useless.

Moving from Bełżec to Sobibór, Mattogno accuses me on p. 1215 of dishonestly contorting the sense of a long slab of text from MGK’s Sobibór book[56], without explaining what the claimed dishonest contortion is supposed to consist of. In said long slab of text, which Mattogno quotes in all its splendor, MGK complain about "persons not satisfied with mere belief in eye witness claims and fanciful interpretations of documents" being "equated with flat-earthers and simply not debated with", and about the supposed cardinal scientific sin of accepting "as an a priori fact" the Sobibór gas chambers "for which there exist only the weakest type of evidence, namely eye witness testimony". "If this is not ‘pseudoscience,’ then what is it?", Mattogno rhetorically asks.

Well, it’s a reasonable scientific approach, as reasonable as it was to accept the existence and destruction of Roman Pompeji based on contemporary eyewitness accounts independently of what archaeological research revealed.

Anatoly Fomenko and others have mounted convincing arguments that there are holes in our chronology and that this Pompeii nonsense was artificially thrown back into the past by the French jesuits who wrote our current chronology only a few centuries ago.
One last one.

as to documents regarding the AR camps and deportations thereto, the only "fanciful" interpretations thereof are those of Mattogno et al, who to this day have not been able to provide a single name of a Jew supposedly transited to the Nazi-occupied territories of the Soviet Union even though such names would be all over the place if such transit had occurred.[58]

Ah yes, the whole, "well then where did they go then?" conundrum.
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8272
One more. Here is a reader posted comment.

Nathan said...

- Considering that Rabbi Weiss’ concerns of "desecration" were obviously not shared at the time by other leading figures of the Jewish religious community, a reasonable person might conclude that there were differences in the Jewish religious community as to the interpretation of rules governing burial places and the exceptions of such rules, -

It happens all the time. Pope Francis, IIRC is quite loose on the subject of contraceptives. Catholics in other parts of the world aren't. As "monolithic" as Religious doctrine is, different people will always interpret it differently.

Dumbass antisemite Mattogno is too stupid to realize this.
Sunday, February 21, 2016 5:17:00 am

Since rabbis themselves can't agree on disturbing entire corpses or not, I see no reason to subvert science to religion and make excuses for it.

[hermod]

Can anybody tell these Jews (see below) that they were requesting something forbidden or explain the Holo-scam propagandists what a proper Jewish burial is?


https://postimg.org/image/dolqg26cb/

[Hannover]

Can anybody tell these Jews (see below) that they were requesting something forbidden or explain the Holo-scam propagandists what a proper Jewish burial is?


https://postimg.org/image/dolqg26cb/

Can someone tell these Jews that what they were requesting does not exist. Hence we have heard nothing from this 'Israeli Institute of Forensic Medicine'.
We're talking about an alleged '6M Jews & 5M others' ... 11,000,000.
There is not a single verifiable excavated enormous mass grave with contents actually SHOWN, not just claimed, (recall the claim of 900,000 buried at Treblinka, or 250,000 at Sobibor) even though Jews claim they still exist and claim to know exactly where these alleged enormous mass graves are.

Hannover

- The mere fact that we have so many "survivors" when it's claimed that 'the Germans tried to kill every Jew they could get their hands on' blows away the scam.

- If Jews are so sure that millions of Jews were murdered, then why do they ask such dumb questions like "what happened to them?"

[Hannover]

BTW, excellent work, Hermod.

In addition, this newspaper article further demolishes the latest spin by The Chosen Ones / 'Nessie' which says:

'There are no bodies / bones to excavate because the Germans exhumed them all and ground them to ash and then mixed them with the soil'.



- Hannover

This is too easy.

Hey! Revisionists are just the messengers, the impossible storyline is the message.

[hermod]

Can anybody tell these Jews (see below) that they were requesting something forbidden or explain the Holo-scam propagandists what a proper Jewish burial is?


https://postimg.org/image/dolqg26cb/

Can someone tell these Jews that what they were requesting does not exist. Hence we have heard nothing from this 'Israeli Institute of Forensic Medicine'.

The realization of this has of course brought the emergence of the Big Excuse for keeping Holocaustianity within the intangible evidential standards of the other faiths...

BTW, excellent work, Hermod.

Thank you, Hannover.