Aktion 1005 Was Not To Destroy Remains?

[Keen]

As a discovered mass grave

I don't believe that any mass graves have been discovered at Belzec.

But you allege that they have:

H - Is it - True. - or - False. - that; Mass graves have actually been discovered by archaeologists / forensic investigators at Belzec, Chelmno, Ponary, Sobibor and Treblinka II - ??

bombsaway: True.

Can you substantiate that allegation - Yes. - or - No. - ??

because I don't think Kola was incompetent at his job or lying , though it's possible he was

bombsaway, you have made the following allegation:

H - Is it - True. - or - False. - that; Mass graves have actually been discovered by archaeologists / forensic investigators at Belzec, Chelmno, Ponary, Sobibor and Treblinka II - ??

bombsaway: True.

Can you substantiate that allegation - Yes. - or - No. - ??

[bombsaway]

I don't believe that any mass graves have been discovered at Belzec.

But you allege that they have:



Can you substantiate that allegation - Yes. - or - No. - ??

because I don't think Kola was incompetent at his job or lying , though it's possible he was

bombsaway, you have made the following allegation:

H - Is it - True. - or - False. - that; Mass graves have actually been discovered by archaeologists / forensic investigators at Belzec, Chelmno, Ponary, Sobibor and Treblinka II - ??

bombsaway: True.

Can you substantiate that allegation - Yes. - or - No. - ??

I guess we could say the archeologists claim to have discovered graves, and I believe them. You don't. That's ok but that's the end of the line for us.

[Keen]

because I don't think Kola was incompetent at his job or lying , though it's possible he was

bombsaway, you have made the following allegation:

H - Is it - True. - or - False. - that; Mass graves have actually been discovered by archaeologists / forensic investigators at Belzec, Chelmno, Ponary, Sobibor and Treblinka II - ??

bombsaway: True.

Can you substantiate that allegation - Yes. - or - No. - ??

I guess we could say the archeologists claim to have discovered graves, and I believe them. You don't. That's ok but that's the end of the line for us.

bombsaway, you have made the following allegation:

H - Is it - True. - or - False. - that; Mass graves have actually been discovered by archaeologists / forensic investigators at Belzec, Chelmno, Ponary, Sobibor and Treblinka II - ??

bombsaway: True.

Can you substantiate that allegation - Yes. - or - No. - ??

[Keen]

bombsaway:

That's the end of the line for us.

You're running away already?

But bombsaway, you didn't even prove the existence of one grave.

Not one!

Oh well:

[bombsaway]

So what? Are the "graves" proven to not exist?

[Wahrheitssucher]

So what? Are the "graves" proven to not exist?

Bombsaway’s belief-system relies on the ‘god-of-the-gaps’ theology.

E.g. “So what? Are "unicorns" proven to not exist?”

[Nessie]

Mass graves are proven to not exist, by evidence such as GPR surveys that find undisturbed ground, eyewitnesses who state no mass graves were ever dug, or an archaeological excavation that finds nothing buried. So-called revisionists have no such evidence, so they come with often ignorant and laughable ways to dispute the evidence that proves the existence of mass graves.

[bombsaway]

So what? Are the "graves" proven to not exist?

Bombsaway’s belief-system relies on the ‘god-of-the-gaps’ theology.

E.g. “So what? Are "unicorns" proven to not exist?”

The grand irony is mass graves are much more evidenced to exist (through archeology reports, witness statements, and documents!) than resettlement camps in Russia, so whatever your critique is of me it applies to you 1000 fold

[TlsMS93]

The existence of cremated remains or mass graves does not prove genocide, just as cremations in India do not indicate genocide, even if archaeologists are taken there and determine that the Indians cremate bodies to erase evidence of whatever criminal act.

Unless you bring me the ashes of the 800,000 alleged victims of Treblinka II, this is only a lie. After all, it is not said that these ashes were thrown into a river, and the Western Bug River is a mere 2 km away from the camp.

[Nessie]

The existence of cremated remains or mass graves does not prove genocide, just as cremations in India do not indicate genocide, even if archaeologists are taken there and determine that the Indians cremate bodies to erase evidence of whatever criminal act.

Unless you bring me the ashes of the 800,000 alleged victims of Treblinka II, this is only a lie. After all, it is not said that these ashes were thrown into a river, and the Western Bug River is a mere 2 km away from the camp.

You reject evidence of mass graves, from eyewitnesses, archaeology, geophysics and photos.

You cannot produce any evidence that the ground at TII is largely undisturbed and that hundreds of thousands of people left the camp.

[Wahrheitssucher]

So what? Are the "graves" proven to not exist?

Bombsaway’s belief-system relies on the ‘god-of-the-gaps’ theology.

E.g. “So what? Are "unicorns" proven to not exist?”

The grand irony is mass graves are much more evidenced to exist (through archeology reports, witness statements, and documents!) than resettlement camps in Russia, so whatever your critique is of me it applies to you 1000 fold.

1. That is the immature tu quoque logically fallacious argument.
2. The “critique” was of your reasoning to support your ‘belief-system’, NOT of you personally.

You appear not to understand why your argument was a classic fail. I think you ought to ponder upon it.

The existence or non-existence of unicorns I thought was a fairly simple, comparable example.
If someone can’t understand the example’s relevance, the natural conclusion is they have low IQ.
If someone can’t concede the argument used in both cases is illogical, the natural conclusion is they aren’t discussing honestly.

Which is it in your case, Bombsaway?

[bombsaway]

1. That is the immature tu quoque logically fallacious argument.
2. The “critique” was of your reasoning to support your ‘belief-system’, NOT of you personally.

You appear not to understand why your argument was a classic fail. I think you ought to ponder upon it.

The existence or non-existence of unicorns I thought was a fairly simple, comparable example.
If someone can’t understand the example’s relevance, the natural conclusion is they have low IQ.
If someone can’t concede the argument used in both cases is illogical, the natural conclusion is they aren’t discussing honestly.

Which is it in your case, Bombsaway?

There's evidence of the graves, better evidence than of unicorns, like I said, witness testimony, forensic reports, and documents like this

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... r.html?m=1

Your unicorn analogy is not very analogous therefore, it is analogous to the situation re resettlement camps in Russia.

[Wahrheitssucher]

1. That is the immature tu quoque logically fallacious argument.
2. The “critique” was of your reasoning to support your ‘belief-system’, NOT of you personally.

You appear not to understand why your argument was a classic fail. I think you ought to ponder upon it.

The existence or non-existence of unicorns I thought was a fairly simple, comparable example.
If someone can’t understand the example’s relevance, the natural conclusion is they have low IQ.
If someone can’t concede the argument used in both cases is illogical, the natural conclusion is they aren’t discussing honestly.

Which is it in your case, Bombsaway?

There's evidence of the graves, better evidence than of unicorns…

Your unicorn analogy is not very analogous therefore, it is analogous to the situation re resettlement camps in Russia.

You dodged the question put to you.

Here it is again in a hopefully more easily understood format.

Are the "graves" proven to not exist?
Are "unicorns" proven to not exist?”

Both use the same logic. Do you agree?

Both employ false logic to argue the existence of something. Do you agree?

…There's evidence of the graves, better evidence than of unicorns…

This isn’t a comparison of “better” or worse evidence.
It is a comparison of equally illogical argument.
You appear to still not understand.

1. There is NO credible evidence of unicorns.
2. There is NO credible evidence of ‘mass-graves’ that could contain the claimed numbers of jewish holocaust victims claimed for each claimed ‘extermination camp’.

Do you comprehend the point, yet?

[bombsaway]

Are the "graves" proven to not exist?
Are "unicorns" proven to not exist?”

Both use the same logic. Do you agree?

No lol, I think there is credible evidence, like I said, but that isn't "proof", which is a subjective evaluation, I am using your frame.

"In general, evidence is any information or data that supports a claim, while proof is conclusive evidence that establishes a claim as true beyond any reasonable doubt. Evidence is used to make a claim more or less probable, whereas proof provides a definitive conclusion."

So probably the way to "prove" mass graves would be to conduct a dig with revisionists present, allow them to take samples back, etc, though I think even this would be contested. Flat Earthers contest the results of the final experiment,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Final ... xpedition)

if you have sufficient brain rot, "proof" is not going to be attainable.

[Nessie]

This is typical.

...
There's evidence of the graves, better evidence than of unicorns…

Your unicorn analogy is not very analogous therefore, it is analogous to the situation re resettlement camps in Russia.

Bombsaway uses evidence to determine what happened. The evidence counters an attempt to use argument and logic.

You dodged the question put to you.

Here it is again in a hopefully more easily understood format.

Are the "graves" proven to not exist?
Are "unicorns" proven to not exist?”

Both use the same logic. Do you agree?

Both employ false logic to argue the existence of something. Do you agree?

Evidence proves the existence, or non-existence of something, not logic or argument. No evidence has been produced to prove mass graves do not exist. Unicorns are proven, by evidence, to not exist.

…There's evidence of the graves, better evidence than of unicorns…

This isn’t a comparison of “better” or worse evidence.
It is a comparison of equally illogical argument.
You appear to still not understand.

1. There is NO credible evidence of unicorns.
2. There is NO credible evidence of ‘mass-graves’ that could contain the claimed numbers of jewish holocaust victims claimed for each claimed ‘extermination camp’.

Do you comprehend the point, yet?

There is no credible evidence of unicorns and the evidence is that they are a made up, mythological animal, from legend, and used in stories.

There is credible evidence of mass graves, from German, Ukrainian, Polish and Jewish eyewitnesses, archaeological excavations, geophysical surveys and photographs. People who worked at the camp, or saw activity inside, along with site surveys and photos, are standard forms of evidence. What took place is being evidenced, as any historical event is evidenced. Just because someone might think that evidence is not credible, does not therefore mean it is.

We have been here before, with the so-called revisionist attempted use of logic to make arguments, rather than evidencing their claims, or beliefs. Instead of producing eyewitnesses, archaeological, geophysical or photographic evidence to prove no mass graves at TII for hundreds of thousands of corpses, we get a stupid argument about a unicorn. Arguing, with a false analogy, the evidence is not credible, is a fail.

To prove an eyewitness is not credible, as in they are lying about the presence of huge mass graves for hundreds of thousands of corpses, needs evidence no such graves exist. It is the same for the archaeology. To prove there are no such mass graves, needs archaeological evidence to prove no, or limited ground disturbances.