Keen wrote: ↑Thu Nov 13, 2025 8:48 pm
The standard applied in U.S civil courts is the very low preponderance of evidence standard.
Callafangers,
Of the 33 alleged Belzec graves / cremation pits in question - the one that you can
conclusively prove currently contains the most human remains is number: _?_.
Of the 21 alleged Chelmno graves / cremation pits in question - the one that you can
conclusively prove currently contains the most human remains is number: _?_.
Of the 22 alleged Sobibor graves / cremation pits in question - the one that you can
conclusively prove currently contains the most human remains is number: _?_.
Of the 15 alleged Treblinka II graves / cremation pits in question - the one that you can
conclusively prove currently contains the most human remains is number: _?_.
Of the 91 alleged graves / cremation pits of Belzec, Chelmno, Sobibor and Treblinka II in question - the one that you can
conclusively prove currently contains the most human remains is number: _?_.
What are you waiting for Callafangers?
Keen, this above is the exact kind of unproductive shenanigans that you've been called out on. It was just explained to you that, while your questions are valuable, they don't require you to defend any specific point or conclusion. Your questions are strong, therefore, but your argument is weak, since you are not actually arguing anything but simply spamming your questions.
I repeat: they are good questions. But notice that all of your questions are qualitative in nature -- they all use the word "
conclusively", which is a standard that
has no universal definition, thus it becomes a matter of opinion; not fact, not measurable, not verifiable... so, it cannot ever explain what did or did not happen.
Regarding the "standard applied in US civil courts", aka "preponderance of evidence", it is defined as:
preponderance /prĭ-pŏn′dər-əns/
noun
1. Superiority in weight, force, importance, or influence.
In other words, it just has to be
more likely than not that the evidence shows a certain number of corpses at a given location. But who is the arbiter of how and whether this standard is met? You and I are not US courts, we are not at trial, and
so it is really just conflicting opinions about whether the studies by the likes of Kola, Lukaszkiewicz, etc. are actually truthful, accurate, and/or meaningful to any degree.