My Very Own Sub-Forum on CODOH!

[Keen]

Keen... all of your questions are qualitative in nature... they all use the word "conclusively"

That is a demonstrable lie.

the word "conclusively", ...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.

What a retard.

Conclusively:

in a decisive way that has the effect of proving a case

putting an end to debate or question especially by reason of irrefutability

reason of irrefutability:

The irrefutability of a claim or argument is primarily due to its standards of evidence and logical consistency. It stands strong even when subjected to rigorous scrutiny, anticipating common objections and neutralizing them. This means that the claim or argument is so convincingly true that it cannot be successfully challenged.

Callafangers, can it be conclusively proven, anywhere and everywhere in the world, that an event called "World War Two" actually happened - Yes. - or - No. - ??

Is it "a matter of opinion" or a conclusivey proven fact, that an event called "World War Two" actually happened?

[Keen]

Fair enough, I'd be remissed had I not mentioned it.

Carry on.

Thank you. And I will.

Callafangers:

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... You don't even make clear where you place that bar. I have not heard you mention Andrzej Kola, Łukaszkiewicz, or others. Instead you seem to dismiss them outright but you never explain why. Why is that? Don't you understand that this is at the core of the matters you are challenging?

WOW!!! Again Callafangers, your stupidity and ignorance is stunning. How do you not understand that my fundamental position is that the so-called archaeological / fornesnic / scientific investigations (and of course their alleged "findings / conclusions") of Belzec, Chelmno, Sobibor and Treblinka II were FRAUDULENT CHARADES / COGNITIVE ILLUSIONS and that their "findings" were demonstably false?

Blacks Law Dictionary defines Preponderance of Evidence as "a standard of proof in civil cases where the evidence presented by a party is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence presented by the opposing party... In essence, it indicates that the evidence must tip the scales in favor of one party..."

fraudulent

obtained, done by, or involving deception, especially criminal deception:

charade

an empty or deceptive act or pretense

a situation in which people pretend that something is true when it clearly is not

Cognitive illusions are deceptive tricks that reveal how our brains process information and make decisions. They exploit our expectations and assumptions, leading to misinterpretations and incorrect conclusions. These illusions highlight the brain's reliance on context and expectation, making us vulnerable to false patterns in complex or ambiguous environments.

Callafangers, do believe that there is a preponderance of evidence that the Haimi, Bauman, Freund, etc., "archaeological / scientific investigation" of Sobibor involved fraud - Yes. - or - No. - ??

BTW, this article might help you to answer the question:

https://aronheller.com/articles/israeli ... eath-camp/

‘‘I feel like I am an investigator in a criminal forensic laboratory,’’ Haimi, 51, said near his home in southern Israel this week, a day before departing for another dig in Poland. ‘‘After all, it is a murder scene.’’ Over five years of excavations... He hasn’t found anything about his family, but amid the teeth, bone shards and ashes through which he has sifted, he has recovered jewelry, keys and coins that have helped identify some of Sobibor’s formerly nameless victims. The heavy concentration of ashes led him to estimate that far more than 250,000 Jews were actually killed at Sobibor.

[Keen]

Stubble, I would be very interested in your answer to the above question as well.

[Stubble]

Fraud?

Na, I'd say 'misdirection' would be a better description. They did publish their data and the corresponding images.

Had they falsified or withheld data, I'd say fraud would apply. Currently it is my opinion that 'misdirection' or 'creative interpretation' would be more fitting.

[Keen]

Fraud? Na,

fraudulent

obtained, done by, or involving deception

So are you saying that you do not believe that there was any deception involved in the Haimi, Bauman, Freund, etc., "archaeological / scientific investigation" of Sobibor?

I'd say 'misdirection' would be a better description.

misdirection

the action of sending something to the wrong place or aiming something in the wrong direction:

So what wrong place or wrong direction where they trying to send us?

What was the intent of "misdirecting" us?

Is deliberate misdirection deception?

They did publish their data and the corresponding images.

Can you show me the "published data and the corresponding images" that prove that Sobibors "huge mass graves" 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 & 22 actually exist and currently contain the remains of at least 2 people?

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=16876#p16876

Had they falsified or withheld data, I'd say fraud would apply.

Can you show me the geophysical data that proves the existence of 21 "huge mass graves" at Sobibor?

Do you deny that the NOVA program was pulled and disappeared?

Do you deny that it was reported that Yoram Haimi alleged "The heavy concentration of ashes led him to estimate that far more than 250,000 Jews were actually killed at Sobibor."?

Do you deny that those alleged "more than 250,000 Jews" are alleged to be buried in 22 "huge mass graves" within the boundary of Sobibor?

Do you deny that the so-called "findings" of the Haimi, Bauman, Freund, etc., "archaeological / scientific investigation" was that it proved the orthodox story of the Sobibor "holocaust"?

[Stubble]

Good lord Keen, that the images do not show 'huge mass graves' should be patently obvious when one looks at the images contained in the various summaries of the digs.

To call this 'fraud' in my opinion is to stretch the definition of the word. I can't possibly be more clear.

A better question would have been 'did the digs prove 'huge mass graves' at the Sobibor site' to which I could have clearly responded 'no'.

Instead you have poorly phrased the question and are now choosing to quibble.

[Keen]

Good lord Keen, that the images do not show 'huge mass graves' should be patently obvious when one looks at the images contained in the various summaries of the digs.

Can you show me the "published data and the corresponding images" that prove that Sobibors "huge mass graves" 9, 10, 11, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 & 22 actually exist and currently contain the remains of at least 2 people - Yes. - or - No. - ??

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=16876#p16876

Do you deny that the NOVA program, which was already airing trailers and had a scheduled showtime date, was pulled and disappeared - Yes. - or - No. - ??

Do you deny that it was reported that Yoram Haimi alleged "The heavy concentration of ashes led him to estimate that far more than 250,000 Jews were actually killed at Sobibor." - Yes. - or - No. - ??

Do you deny that the so-called "findings" of the Haimi, Bauman, Freund, etc., "archaeological / scientific investigation" was that it proved the orthodox story of the Sobibor "holocaust" - Yes. - or - No. - ??

Did it?

And if it didn't, then their "conclusions" are false, correct?

To call this 'fraud' in my opinion is to stretch the definition of the word.

fraudulent

obtained, done by, or involving deception

So are you saying that you do not believe that there was any deception involved in the Haimi, Bauman, Freund, etc., "archaeological / scientific investigation" of Sobibor - Yes. - or - No. - ??

misdirection

the action of sending something to the wrong place or aiming something in the wrong direction:

So what wrong place or wrong direction where they trying to send us?

What was their intent for "misdirecting" us?

Is deliberate misdirection deception?

[Stubble]

1) no.

Also, previously addressed. The documentation of the digs is at odds with the assertion.

2) no.

Of course the program was pulled. It never aired.

3) I lean toward an answer of 'yes'. To my knowledge no one made that assertion. I'm going to guess there is a correction coming. Being unfamiliar with this minutia I'll grant that I could be mistaken and that at some point that assertion may have been made.

4) yes

I deny that their findings 'prove the holocaust'. If they ever did assert that it did then I assume correction is coming.

5) no

They did indeed deceptively label and present their findings in my opinion. I simply don't put it at the level of fraud and choose to say 'misrepresented' or 'misinterpreted'.

I blame their holocaust goggles, mostly.

A similar argument to that I make with regard to Kola.

Again, we are quibbling over chosen verbiage. This argument is wholly inconsequential. We don't disagree at core.

[Keen]

Again, we are quibbling over chosen verbiage.

No, we are not. You are, for some reason, pretending that deliberate acts of deception and demonstrably blatent false "findings / conclusions" are somehow simple and innocent acts of "misdirection," and not demonstable acts of fraud.

Deliberate acts of misdirection is, by definition, deception, and deliberate acts of deception is fraud.

But now you change your words. But the fact that you "choose to say 'misrepresented' or 'misinterpreted'" (earlier it was "misdirection") doesn't change that fact that the "investigations findings" involved fraud.

You said:

"Had they falsified or withheld data, I'd say fraud would apply," then admitted that the NOVA program "was pulled" and that "It never aired."

That was / is withholding data, yet now you still refuse to "say fraud would apply" when it clearly does. You are playing word games.

You claim that my question was "poorly phrased," yet I have clearly demonstated that the "investigation" did involve fraud.

I asked you: "Can you show me the "published data and the corresponding images" that prove that Sobibors "huge mass graves" 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 & 22 actually exist and currently contain the remains of at least 2 people?" and you replied: "Good lord Keen, that the images do not show 'huge mass graves' should be patently obvious when one looks at the images contained in the various summaries of the digs." So I asked you again: "Can you show me the "published data and the corresponding images" that prove that Sobibors "huge mass graves" 9, 10, 11, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 & 22 actually exist and currently contain the remains of at least 2 people - Yes. - or - No. - ??" And you replied: No, which is a clear admission and contradition in one small word.

Stubble:

They did indeed deceptively label and present their findings

They did indeed.

Stubble,

Do believe that there is a preponderance of evidence that the Haimi, Bauman, Freund, etc., "archaeological / scientific investigation" of Sobibor involved deception - Yes. - or - No. - ??

BTW Stubble, how does one "misinterpret" the alleged "archaeological / forensic / scientific proof" that the remains of 250,000 people lie in 22 "huge mass graves" when they could only see the reamains of 10?

How does one "misrepresent" those allegations without deliberately trying to decieve?

[Stubble]

Holocaust goggles man. Holocaust goggles.

This argument over the word 'fraud' makes me feel like I'm arguing with a jew about what a 'lie' is.

Tell you what, fuck it, sure, it's an intentional fraud, not a misrepresentation or misinterpretation of their findings.

Now can we move forward?

I stress again, at core, we don't disagree, I simply thought 'fraud' was too strong a word.

Again, they published pictures and the pictures showed yard after yard of clean fill, not 'human remains'.

[Keen]

Holocaust goggles man. Holocaust goggles.

This argument over the word 'fraud' makes me feel like I'm arguing with a jew about what a 'lie' is.

Tell you what, fuck it, sure, it's an intentional fraud, not a misrepresentation or misinterpretation of their findings.

Now can we move forward?

Yes we can, but not quit yet.

The difference between misinterpretation and deliberate deception is night and day.

Again, you are playing word games and for some reason are pretending that the differerence is so negligable that it falls under the catagory of "quibling" when it obviously does not.

I stress again, at core, we don't disagree, I simply thought 'fraud' was too strong a word.

OK, let me rephrase the question:

Do believe that there is a preponderance of evidence that the Haimi, Bauman, Freund, etc., "archaeological / forensic / scientific investigation" of Sobibor involved deliberate attempts to decieve - Yes. - or - No. - ??

Again, they published pictures and the pictures showed yard after yard of clean fill, not 'human remains'.

And don't forget what else they published and did not publish:

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=16876#p16876

[Stubble]

Tentative 'yes'.

Personally, I think they were just wearing 'holocaust goggles'. Without a pair of those myself, I don't in any way see what they state they saw.

Further, I count it in their favor the number of times they plainly stated 'this is not a mass grave'.

/shrug

I don't think they were attempting to deceive anybody.

I think the whole team is fucking delusional.

[Keen]

Stubble,

Do you believe that there is a preponderance of evidence that the Haimi, Bauman, Freund, etc., "archaeological / forensic / scientific investigation" of Sobibor involved deliberate attempts to decieve - Yes. - or - No. - ??

Stubble: Tentative 'yes'.

Also Stubble:

I don't think they were attempting to deceive anybody.

Also Stubble:

They did indeed deceptively label and present their findings

Stubble:

They did publish their data and the corresponding images.

Keen:

Can you show me the "published data and the corresponding images" that prove that Sobibors "huge mass graves" 9, 10, 11, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 & 22 actually exist and currently contain the remains of at least 2 people - Yes. - or - No. - ??

Stubble: No.

Stubble:

Had they falsified or withheld data, I'd say fraud would apply.

Also Stubble:

the [NOVA] program was pulled. It never aired.

Note: As far as I'm aware, not an iota of the geophysical data, which was available to Haimi, Bauman, Freund, etc., and was highlighted in the NOVA trailer, and allegedly showed / "proved" the size of the alleged "huge mass graves" was ever published or made available to the general public in any way, shape of form. If that isn't "withheld data" then what is?

Tentative 'yes'.

Personally, I think they were just wearing 'holocaust goggles'. Without a pair of those myself, I don't in any way see what they state they saw.

Further, I count it in their favor the number of times they plainly stated 'this is not a mass grave'.

/shrug

I don't think they were attempting to deceive anybody.

I think the whole team is fucking delusional.

I wholeheartily agree on the fucking delusional thing, but I can't believe that any scientist wouldn't understand on some level that what they were engaged in was decptive, to say the least.

Anyway, let's move on.

So let's refine this. What we are trying to do is create the strongest statment of fact concerning this fraudulent "investigation" that is an irrefutable rebuttable presumption. So, a couple simple questions (suprise suprise - right?):

When looking at the offical maps, are alleged graves shown and numbered?

Note that "huge mass grave" #18 is not shown on either of these maps, but for the time being, let's assume that there is an official map out there that includes it.





And to clarify, we need to ask the questions:

How many graves are shown and numbered in these two officail maps? (For arguments sake, let's assume #18 is shown and listed in there somewhere. And we will count #22 / "memory hill" / "the ash mound" as a listed grave as well.)

Is it alleged that the Haimi, Bauman, Freund, etc., "investigation" team, that they "archaeologically / forensicly / scientificaly" proved that the remains of 250,000 jews currently lie in those 22 graves?

‘‘I feel like I am an investigator in a criminal forensic laboratory,’’ Haimi, 51, said near his home in southern Israel this week, a day before departing for another dig in Poland. ‘‘After all, it is a murder scene.’’ Over five years of excavations... He hasn’t found anything about his family, but amid the teeth, bone shards and ashes through which he has sifted, he has recovered jewelry, keys and coins that have helped identify some of Sobibor’s formerly nameless victims. The heavy concentration of ashes led him to estimate that far more than 250,000 Jews were actually killed at Sobibor.

https://aronheller.com/articles/israeli ... eath-camp/

[Stubble]

‘‘I feel like I am an investigator in a criminal forensic laboratory,’’ Haimi, 51, said near his home in southern Israel this week, a day before departing for another dig in Poland. ‘‘After all, it is a murder scene.’’ Over five years of excavations... He hasn’t found anything about his family, but amid the teeth, bone shards and ashes through which he has sifted, he has recovered jewelry, keys and coins that have helped identify some of Sobibor’s formerly nameless victims. The heavy concentration of ashes led him to estimate that far more than 250,000 Jews were actually killed at Sobibor.

https://aronheller.com/articles/israeli ... eath-camp/

Did Haimi say the quarter of a million dead jews bit? Or is that a colorful maneuvering of words by the author of the piece referenced?

If anybody thinks any of those digs show anything close to that count, they need their eyes, their head, and their reflexes examined.

Again, I'm willing to be corrected, but, I don't recall anyone involved in the dig actually making such a sweeping claim.

With regard to the beginning of your post, it appears you think I am being opaque. I've tried to be very clear. Let me see if I can employ an analogy in an effort to not be misunderstood here.

Let's say I am a purveyor of fish. I sell you a fish telling you it is the largest example I have ever seen. You find in a record book that there is recorded a larger example in the same decade.

Would you say I have defrauded you?

This analogy isn't 'perfect'. It does drive at my point though. With a fraud, I would think the team would not have said things like 'mass grave 1 is not a mass grave' and I don't think they would have shared photographs of yard after yard of clean fill that they dug out.

I find it curious that I am left defending a group of exterminationists. I can assure you I do not do this for love of them or because I particularly like them. I am simply defending the truth so far as I know it in this particular instance.

While the team is delusional with 'holocaust affirmation disorder', it is my opinion they are not consciously misrepresenting their findings. They are just wrong, because they are bias.

[Keen]

‘‘I feel like I am an investigator in a criminal forensic laboratory,’’ Haimi, 51, said near his home in southern Israel this week, a day before departing for another dig in Poland. ‘‘After all, it is a murder scene.’’ Over five years of excavations... He hasn’t found anything about his family, but amid the teeth, bone shards and ashes through which he has sifted, he has recovered jewelry, keys and coins that have helped identify some of Sobibor’s formerly nameless victims. The heavy concentration of ashes led him to estimate that far more than 250,000 Jews were actually killed at Sobibor.

https://aronheller.com/articles/israeli ... eath-camp/

Did Haimi say the quarter of a million dead jews bit? Or is that a colorful maneuvering of words by the author of the piece referenced?

If anybody thinks any of those digs show anything close to that count, they need their eyes, their head, and their reflexes examined.

Again, I'm willing to be corrected, but, I don't recall anyone involved in the dig actually making such a sweeping claim.

With regard to the beginning of your post, it appears you think I am being opaque. I've tried to be very clear. Let me see if I can employ an analogy in an effort to not be misunderstood here.

Let's say I am a purveyor of fish. I sell you a fish telling you it is the largest example I have ever seen. You find in a record book that there is recorded a larger example in the same decade.

Would you say I have defrauded you?

This analogy isn't 'perfect'. It does drive at my point though. With a fraud, I would think the team would not have said things like 'mass grave 1 is not a mass grave' and I don't think they would have shared photographs of yard after yard of clean fill that they dug out.

I find it curious that I am left defending a group of exterminationists. I can assure you I do not do this for love of them or because I particularly like them. I am simply defending the truth so far as I know it in this particular instance.

While the team is delusional with 'holocaust affirmation disorder', it is my opinion they are not consciously misrepresenting their findings. They are just wrong, because they are bias.

Your last post has three points.

What were the claims made by the so-called "investigators." I think that deserves it's own thread and dovetails nicely with a new thread that I'll be posting soon.

The second was your analogy, which doesnt' come close to being relevent. We are talking about science here. Alleged scientists using the scientific method, scientific tools and making science based allegations. And you try to compare that with "a purveyor of fish"? You can do much much better than that Stubble.

And the third is the issue about bias, which you are trying to use as an excuse for scientific fraud. A legitimate scientist doing a letitimate scientific investigation does not hide his data and does not refuse to defend their alleged discoveries.

AND, and this is important, if they know for a fact that some people are making incorrect or misleading statements about their alleged discoveries, THEY CORRECT THEM. Remaining silent, refusing to correct, hiding data, is complicity in the fraud. And here you are making excuses for that fraudulent behavior.

With all due respect Stubble, I think you have on a pair of those holocaust goggles yourself.

Stubble:

While the team is delusional with 'holocaust affirmation disorder', it is my opinion they are not consciously misrepresenting their findings. They are just wrong, because they are bias.

You, and the holocaust light crowd, have fallen for the Sobibor psyop.

ALL the so-called "investigations" were fraudulent charades / cognitive illusions - just like the "ash mound" was.

EVERY. SINGLE. ONE.


Remember Stubble:

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.

But people run and hide everytime I start to do this, because they do not want to know the truth that they know I can prove.

Remember also Stubble, this is the largest mass grave EVER proven to exist within the boundary of the Sobibor camp:



And that includes the so-called "ash mound."

Now lets get back to business Stubble.