The CODOH Revisionist Forum

Stubble wrote: ↑Tue Jul 15, 2025 5:04 pm /sigh

Nessie, reread the last dozen or so posts and reflect on them for a day or so.

You don't even understand what I'm saying, or you pretend not to. We aren't talking to one another, but rather at one another. You need to actually understand what I'm saying if we are going to meaningfully debate.

I understand what you are saying. You accept only the evidence of 4 pits at TII. The rest of the evidence you dismiss. That supports your desired belief, that there is not enough grave space at the camp to bury c850,000 corpses.

Let's not continue to clutter the thread.

The reason people 'pick cherries' when looking at these testimonies is because if you don't, there is no cohesion because they are all radically different.

Not they are not. They are entirely consistent that mass graves were located in the south-eastern part of the camp, and in the Lazarete. No eyewitness locates a mass grave anywhere else in the camp, or states there were no, or only a few graves.

cherry picking: noticing and commenting on physical and testimonial consistencies...

"AI Overview
The cherry picking fallacy, also known as the fallacy of incomplete evidence, involves selectively presenting only the evidence that supports a particular viewpoint while ignoring or suppressing contradictory evidence. This creates a biased and misleading argument, making it appear stronger than it truly is.
Here's a more detailed explanation:
What it is: Cherry picking is a type of informal fallacy where someone presents a one-sided argument by focusing on evidence that supports their claim while ignoring or downplaying evidence that contradicts it.
Why it's fallacious: The core issue with cherry picking is that it distorts the overall picture by presenting a biased and incomplete view of the situation. A genuine and persuasive argument should consider all relevant evidence, not just the parts that fit a pre-determined conclusion"

By cherry-picking only two plans and the GPR for only one part of the survey, you have distorted the overall picture and created an incomplete view of the situation.

HansHill wrote: ↑Tue Jul 15, 2025 4:58 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Tue Jul 15, 2025 4:41 pm If was not already clear, from what I have evidenced, I am not claiming a specific number for the mass graves, since the evidence is not clear how many there were.

Your evidence is dogshit.

That is your opinion. Your evidence is non-existent. That is a fact. You have no eyewitnesses, no archaeology, no geophysics and no photos to support your claim of no mass graves that would fit hundreds of thousands of corpses.

Nessie wrote: ↑Tue Jul 15, 2025 6:08 pm

Stubble wrote: ↑Tue Jul 15, 2025 5:04 pm /sigh

Nessie, reread the last dozen or so posts and reflect on them for a day or so.

You don't even understand what I'm saying, or you pretend not to. We aren't talking to one another, but rather at one another. You need to actually understand what I'm saying if we are going to meaningfully debate.

I understand what you are saying. You accept only the evidence of 4 pits at TII. The rest of the evidence you dismiss. That supports your desired belief, that there is not enough grave space at the camp to bury c850,000 corpses.

No, Nessie, you don't understand what I'm saying Sir.

I've attempted to clearly and concisely articulate my points to you, but, you ignore and dismiss that which you can not reconcile.

For example, with your buddy Warnick, I point out that when he is in a room with other witnesses, there are exactly 4 pits, located in a spot roughly congruent with pits g51, g52, g53 and g54. When you look at his own maps and model however, that changes.

I'm pointing to witness consensus in 3 separate maps, which happen to be congruent with the GPR data. They also happen to be roughly contemporary to the event.

You call this 'cherry picking' and that's fair enough, I ask you, show me your cherries? What do you have in your bucket that is congruent from map to GPR data? Present me with your estimation of the grave space based off of both witness maps and GPR data. When you consider Warnick by himself, his estimation of the reality of the camp falls apart.

Looking through the various other later maps much the same plays out.

I have selected the 3 early, contemporary maps, created by a consensus of 3 witnesses in each case, and they say 4 pits and show them in an area consistent with 4 GPR returns from the Colls study.

I'm interested in more data, you are interested in broad and nebulous statements about how there 'could' have been sufficient grave space as you point in to the unknown. You are of course free to point into the unknown, such is your right. Don't expect me to 'believe' what isn't directly evidenced.

Furthermore, you shouldn't be surprised that I would expect actual physical direct evidence to support your claim of 'huge unfound mass graves'.

You are relying on testimonies that say the camp was 33% grave space when the GPR evidence does not in any way support that. Look closely at the various models, the various maps, and then at the Colls study. You can't reconcile that Nessie, they are not reflective of one another, they are inconsistent.


The Laponder Model


The Peters Model


The Sztajer model
Image unavailable
Edit: Found image, I understand why it has been scrubbed. It is 'holocaust atrocity art', not a model of Treblinka.

Of course, to be fair, in light of the GPR, the same could and rightly should be said for the rest of the models.

The Wiernik Model


There are of course also the maps;

http://www.deathcamps.org/treblinka/maps.html

Nessie, tell me, which of these maps/models do you think best reflects the findings of the Colls study? Which one of these 'proves' human remains in any of the proposed grave space? What exactly is your preferred evidence? What do you select to support your claim of grave space for >850,000 persons on that patch of dirt?

It also occurs to me this thread seems to have drifted from the title as in many pages we haven't talked about physical archeological evidence, but, rather hypothetical and theoretical mass graves, not proven to exist by, ironically, archeological evidence.

For clarity g51,g52,g53 and g54 are at least theoretical, any others are hypothetical.

Nessie wrote: ↑Tue Jul 15, 2025 6:10 pm
That is your opinion.

You've had 80 years to try cobble together a cohesive story and instead, you've spent those 80 years screwing the pooch, retracting half your claims, and locking up dissenters.

Embarrassing.

Caroline didn't find anything similar to what the witnesses said about the immense mass graves. What she found were three much shallower depressions, which wouldn't convince the logic of holding 800,000 bodies. So she went to Treblinka I to investigate near the cemetery. After all, if it's a cemetery, it's evidence that they'll find human remains.

Nessie believes the idea of going to the Lazaret for some medical examination only to end up getting shot in the back of the head and falling into a huge grave.

Stubble wrote: ↑Tue Jul 15, 2025 6:46 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Tue Jul 15, 2025 6:08 pm

Stubble wrote: ↑Tue Jul 15, 2025 5:04 pm /sigh

Nessie, reread the last dozen or so posts and reflect on them for a day or so.

You don't even understand what I'm saying, or you pretend not to. We aren't talking to one another, but rather at one another. You need to actually understand what I'm saying if we are going to meaningfully debate.

I understand what you are saying. You accept only the evidence of 4 pits at TII. The rest of the evidence you dismiss. That supports your desired belief, that there is not enough grave space at the camp to bury c850,000 corpses.

No, Nessie, you don't understand what I'm saying Sir.

You go on to say what I describe above. You accept only two of the maps and part of the GPR evidence (theoretical) and you dismiss everything else (hypothetical).

I've attempted to clearly and concisely articulate my points to you, but, you ignore and dismiss that which you can not reconcile.

ALL of the witness descriptions of the location of the mass graves inside TII reconcile with the archaeological, geophysical and photographic evidence.

For example, with your buddy Warnick, I point out that when he is in a room with other witnesses, there are exactly 4 pits, located in a spot roughly congruent with pits g51, g52, g53 and g54. When you look at his own maps and model however, that changes.

The early, collaborative plans, are clearly not to scale, or representative and rely on memory, three years after the graves were dug. The best evidence of the scale of the area used for mass graves in the 1944 aerial photo.

I'm pointing to witness consensus in 3 separate maps, which happen to be congruent with the GPR data. They also happen to be roughly contemporary to the event.

You call this 'cherry picking' and that's fair enough, I ask you, show me your cherries? What do you have in your bucket that is congruent from map to GPR data? Present me with your estimation of the grave space based off of both witness maps and GPR data. When you consider Warnick by himself, his estimation of the reality of the camp falls apart.

Wiernik's own map here, most closely resembles the aerial photo, showing the location and size of the mass grave areas.

http://www.deathcamps.org/treblinka/pic/bmap22.jpg

Looking through the various other later maps much the same plays out.

I have selected the 3 early, contemporary maps, created by a consensus of 3 witnesses in each case, and they say 4 pits and show them in an area consistent with 4 GPR returns from the Colls study.

You cherry-pick four of the five pits found by GPR and ignore all the evidence that there is more grave space in the same location. Stangl locates the mass graves in the same area as shown in the aerial photo to be disturbed ground and identified by Wiernik;

http://www.deathcamps.org/treblinka/pic/bmap6.jpg

I'm interested in more data, you are interested in broad and nebulous statements about how there 'could' have been sufficient grave space as you point in to the unknown. You are of course free to point into the unknown, such is your right. Don't expect me to 'believe' what isn't directly evidenced.

I have produced evidence from eyewitnesses, archaeology, geophysics and photos to prove mass graves. You cannot cope with that evidence, so you pretend I have none.

Why do you believe the ground is largely undisturbed, with no direct evidence?

Furthermore, you shouldn't be surprised that I would expect actual physical direct evidence to support your claim of 'huge unfound mass graves'.

You are relying on testimonies that say the camp was 33% grave space

No witness states that, you have lied and made it up. I showed you that Wiernik and Kudlik do not even say how many graves there were. STOP LYING.

...when the GPR evidence does not in any way support that. Look closely at the various models, the various maps, and then at the Colls study. You can't reconcile that Nessie, they are not reflective of one another, they are inconsistent.


The Laponder Model


The Peters Model


The Sztajer model
Image unavailable
Edit: Found image, I understand why it has been scrubbed. It is 'holocaust atrocity art', not a model of Treblinka.

Of course, to be fair, in light of the GPR, the same could and rightly should be said for the rest of the models.

The Wiernik Model


There are of course also the maps;

http://www.deathcamps.org/treblinka/maps.html

Nessie, tell me, which of these maps/models do you think best reflects the findings of the Colls study? Which one of these 'proves' human remains in any of the proposed grave space? What exactly is your preferred evidence? What do you select to support your claim of grave space for >850,000 persons on that patch of dirt?

The models, ALL place graves in the locations of the camp indicated by the aerial photo and GPR to contain disturbed ground. You incorrectly think that because they are not precisely the same, that means they are so different that they can be dismissed as wholly inaccurate. That is why you accept the 1945 maps with 4 circles, as they most closely resemble 4 of the pits found in GPR. But people's memory, estimations of dimensions and ability to draw vary.

That the eyewitnesses locate the graves in the same parts of the camp that geophysics finds multiple pits, is corroborating evidence, which along with other evidence from the 1945 excavations and the photos from 1944 and 1945, prove mass graves.

It also occurs to me this thread seems to have drifted from the title as in many pages we haven't talked about physical archeological evidence, but, rather hypothetical and theoretical mass graves, not proven to exist by, ironically, archeological evidence.

For clarity g51,g52,g53 and g54 are at least theoretical, any others are hypothetical.

The pits G50-54 are archaeological evidence of mass graves. Those pits are not hypothetical, they are proven to exist by GPR. You go through amazing mental contortions to dismiss evidence that you do not want to accept and you do believe in what is not directly evidenced, namely that the ground under the memorial was never dug into and corpses buried there.

HansHill wrote: ↑Tue Jul 15, 2025 9:12 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Tue Jul 15, 2025 6:10 pm
That is your opinion.

You've had 80 years to try cobble together a cohesive story and instead, you've spent those 80 years screwing the pooch, retracting half your claims, and locking up dissenters.

Embarrassing.

When so-called revisionists try to revise the history of TII, they end up with zero eyewitnesses who were inside the camp and fall apart with multiple claims about the function of the camp. They claim a lack of grave space, with zero archaeological evidence to support them.

Historians have a consistent, evidenced, cohesive narrative for the function of the camp.

TlsMS93 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 15, 2025 10:17 pm Caroline didn't find anything similar to what the witnesses said about the immense mass graves. What she found were three much shallower depressions, which wouldn't convince the logic of holding 800,000 bodies. So she went to Treblinka I to investigate near the cemetery. After all, if it's a cemetery, it's evidence that they'll find human remains.

Nessie believes the idea of going to the Lazaret for some medical examination only to end up getting shot in the back of the head and falling into a huge grave.

The geophysical survey, found pits in the areas of the camp that eyewitnesses said contained graves. The larger pits were over 4m deep, 4m being the depth of the survey equipment.

You are trying to minimise what was found, when you suggest she only found 3 shallow pits.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16657363

" several larger pits were recorded in areas suggested by witnesses as the locations of mass graves and cremation sites.
One is 26m long, 17m wide and at least four metres deep, with a ramp at the west end and a vertical edge to the east.
Another five pits of varying sizes and also at least this deep are located nearby."

Your dishonesty is easy to prove.

Nessie wrote: ↑Wed Jul 16, 2025 7:46 am Historians have a consistent, evidenced, cohesive narrative for the function of the camp.

Yet they fail to mention the use of the place as an artillary range and aerial bombardement range. Bombs do make rectangle shapes as previously shown with photos.

Nessie wrote: ↑Wed Jul 16, 2025 7:43 am The pits G50-54 are archaeological evidence of mass graves.

They are only proof of ground disturbance or craters.

Jewish-controlled archaeology is always biased. Remember, one of these people swears to have found the remains of relatives of Jesus' family, and even Jesus himself, in Talpiot. At Treblinka, they said that if you found a mass grave, you should stop; it's very simple.