Best Mainstream Pieces of Evidence

[Keen]

A photo is a stronger piece of evidence than a memory. Forensic evidence is routinely regarded as the most accurate.

Speaking of photo's Nessie, we've been asking you to contribute them here:

viewtopic.php?p=15969#p15969

for some time.

After all, you alleged the following:

Nessie:

There are plenty of photos of cremated remains found at Sobibor.

Nessie, we need photos of human remains for Sobibor "huge mass graves"

#9, #10, #11, #17, #18, #19, #20 & #21.

What are you waiting for Sergay?

What are you so afraid of?

Not a single photo proving that 8 out of the 20 fraudulently alleged "huge mass graves" of Sobibor even exist!

[Keen]

every judge and jury that has looked at the evidence presented to them in court have ruled that the Holocaust is real

Confused,

VI - Is it - True. - or - False. - that; Blacks Law Dictionary defines - Burden of Proof - as: “The necessity or duty of affirmatively proving a fact or facts in dispute on an issue raised between the parties in a cause.” - ??

VII - Is it - True. - or - False. - that; The maxims of law found in Bouvier's Law Dictionary include: “The claimant is always bound to prove: the burden of proof lies on him.” - and - “The burden of the proof lies upon him who affirms, not he who denies.” - ??

VIII - Is it - True. - or - False. - that; If “huge mass graves” containing tons of human remains really were “forensically proven” to exist at Belzec, Chelmno, Sobibor and Treblinka II - via bona fide, verifiably honest, and conclusively documented archaeology - then such “scientific proof” would be considered credible and convincing evidence in a U.S. court of law - ??

IX - Is it - True. - or False. - that; If something really is an “undeniable scientifically proven fact” - then it should be provable as such in a U.S. court of law - ??

X - Has it been legally determined in the U.S. that all 89 of the alleged graves / cremation pits in question ( http://thisisaboutscience.com/ ) - currently contain human remains - Yes. - or - No. - ??

XI - Has it been legally determined in the U.S. that all 89 of the alleged graves / cremation pits in question ( http://thisisaboutscience.com/ ) - even exist - Yes. - or - No. - ??

[ConfusedJew]

Every once in a while I do check what Keen has said beneath the mute, but it often seems like the ramblings of a mad man and I worry for his mental health.

[Keen]

Every once in a while I do check what Keen has said beneath the mute, but it often seems like the ramblings of a mad man and I worry for his mental health.

every judge and jury that has looked at the evidence presented to them in court have ruled that the Holocaust is real

Confused jew,

VI - Is it - True. - or - False. - that; Blacks Law Dictionary defines - Burden of Proof - as: “The necessity or duty of affirmatively proving a fact or facts in dispute on an issue raised between the parties in a cause.” - ??

VII - Is it - True. - or - False. - that; The maxims of law found in Bouvier's Law Dictionary include: “The claimant is always bound to prove: the burden of proof lies on him.” - and - “The burden of the proof lies upon him who affirms, not he who denies.” - ??

VIII - Is it - True. - or - False. - that; If “huge mass graves” containing tons of human remains really were “forensically proven” to exist at Belzec, Chelmno, Sobibor and Treblinka II - via bona fide, verifiably honest, and conclusively documented archaeology - then such “scientific proof” would be considered credible and convincing evidence in a U.S. court of law - ??

IX - Is it - True. - or False. - that; If something really is an “undeniable scientifically proven fact” - then it should be provable as such in a U.S. court of law - ??

X - Has it been legally determined in the U.S. that all 89 of the alleged graves / cremation pits in question
( http://thisisaboutscience.com/ ) - currently contain human remains - Yes. - or - No. - ??

XI - Has it been legally determined in the U.S. that all 89 of the alleged graves / cremation pits in question
( http://thisisaboutscience.com/ ) - even exist - Yes. - or - No. - ??

What are you having trouble understanding low IQ jew, the - True. - or False. - questions, or the - Yes. - or - No. - questions?

[ConfusedJew]

Why do you keep calling me low IQ when my IQ is well into the top 1%?

[Keen]

Why do you keep calling me low IQ

Because you are retarded and retards have low IQ's.

Retarded jew,

VI - Is it - True. - or - False. - that; Blacks Law Dictionary defines - Burden of Proof - as: “The necessity or duty of affirmatively proving a fact or facts in dispute on an issue raised between the parties in a cause.” - ??

VII - Is it - True. - or - False. - that; The maxims of law found in Bouvier's Law Dictionary include: “The claimant is always bound to prove: the burden of proof lies on him.” - and - “The burden of the proof lies upon him who affirms, not he who denies.” - ??

VIII - Is it - True. - or - False. - that; If “huge mass graves” containing tons of human remains really were “forensically proven” to exist at Belzec, Chelmno, Sobibor and Treblinka II - via bona fide, verifiably honest, and conclusively documented archaeology - then such “scientific proof” would be considered credible and convincing evidence in a U.S. court of law - ??

IX - Is it - True. - or False. - that; If something really is an “undeniable scientifically proven fact” - then it should be provable as such in a U.S. court of law - ??

X - Has it been legally determined in the U.S. that all 89 of the alleged graves / cremation pits in question
( http://thisisaboutscience.com/ ) - currently contain human remains - Yes. - or - No. - ??

XI - Has it been legally determined in the U.S. that all 89 of the alleged graves / cremation pits in question
( http://thisisaboutscience.com/ ) - even exist - Yes. - or - No. - ??

[ConfusedJew]

VI - True, but that is for a legal standard. The truth and the law don't always align. But this has been tested many times in court and verified. And also this is not a legal case.

VII - Same as above.

VIII - If bona fide archaeological work were properly conducted, documented, and authenticated, then yes — it could be admitted as credible and convincing evidence in a U.S. court of law (subject to the rules of evidence, such as expert testimony standards under Daubert). But again, legal rules of evidence and expert testimony standards don't always align with the truth. And those standards have been tested and confirmed in court.

IX - Only partially true. Courts are not venues for “proving” scientific truth in the abstract. They weigh evidence presented under evidentiary rules. If something is an “undeniable scientifically proven fact,” it can usually be demonstrated and accepted in court but courts recognize limits. They do not determine universal truth, only facts “proven” to the relevant legal standard (e.g. preponderance, clear and convincing, beyond a reasonable doubt).

X - False but irrelevant. US courts have taken judicial notice of the Holocaust as a historically established fact. Multiple trials have admitted overwhelming evidence of extermination at those camps, including documentary records, perpetrator testimony, eyewitness testimony, and forensic/archaeological work. Courts do not proceed by counting or verifying each pit one-by-one; they accept converging historical and forensic evidence of mass killing.

[Keen]

this is not a legal case.

But the retard said this earlier:

Every judge and jury that has looked at the evidence presented to them in court have ruled that the Holocaust is real

VI - Is it - True. - or - False. - that; Blacks Law Dictionary defines - Burden of Proof - as: “The necessity or duty of affirmatively proving a fact or facts in dispute on an issue raised between the parties in a cause.” - ??

Confused jew: True.

VII - Is it - True. - or - False. - that; The maxims of law found in Bouvier's Law Dictionary include: “The claimant is always bound to prove: the burden of proof lies on him.” - and - “The burden of the proof lies upon him who affirms, not he who denies.” - ??

Confused jew: True.

VIII - Is it - True. - or - False. - that; If “huge mass graves” containing tons of human remains really were “forensically proven” to exist at Belzec, Chelmno, Sobibor and Treblinka II - via bona fide, verifiably honest, and conclusively documented archaeology - then such “scientific proof” would be considered credible and convincing evidence in a U.S. court of law - ??

Confused jew: True.

IX - Is it - True. - or False. - that; If something really is an “undeniable scientifically proven fact” - then it should be provable as such in a U.S. court of law - ??

Confused jew: True.

X - Has it been legally determined in the U.S. that all 89 of the alleged graves / cremation pits in question
( http://thisisaboutscience.com/ ) - currently contain human remains - Yes. - or - No. - ??

Confused jew: False.



The retard has such a low IQ that he answers false to a yes or no question!

XI - Has it been legally determined in the U.S. that all 89 of the alleged graves / cremation pits in question
( http://thisisaboutscience.com/ ) - even exist - Yes. - or - No. - ??

The low IQ jew refused to answer this question. Or maybe he just has a hard time with yes or no questions? That appears to be the case with his answer to X.

[Keen]

Courts do not proceed by counting or verifying each pit one-by-one

Why?

Because:

By examining each “proven mass grave” allegation separately, an intelligent person can easily see just how utterly vacuous and criminally fraudulent this transparent archaeological hoax really is.

And that is why the lying, low IQ retard cravenly refused to answer these simple questions:

X - Has it been legally determined in the U.S. that all 89 of the alleged graves / cremation pits in question
( http://thisisaboutscience.com/ ) - currently contain human remains - Yes. - or - No. - ??

XI - Has it been legally determined in the U.S. that all 89 of the alleged graves / cremation pits in question
( http://thisisaboutscience.com/ ) - even exist - Yes. - or - No. - ??

[ConfusedJew]

I'm putting you back on mute because you don't seem to be able to response logically or maybe you intentionally don't want to.

[Keen]

I'm putting you back on mute because...

Yeah, yeah yeah, I know: because you are such a lying coward that you are going to run away rather than answer these simple questions:

X - Has it been legally determined in the U.S. that all 89 of the alleged graves / cremation pits in question
( http://thisisaboutscience.com/ ) - currently contain human remains - Yes. - or - No. - ??

XI - Has it been legally determined in the U.S. that all 89 of the alleged graves / cremation pits in question
( http://thisisaboutscience.com/ ) - even exist - Yes. - or - No. - ??