Nessie wrote:Explain how quoting and linking to articles that give figures and estimations of the number of dead, how many the two main mass graves hold and the finding of more dead, is not quantifying.
Nessie: a journalist's article where they simply
claim a figure is not quantifying anything meaningfully. It has zero basis in documentation, forensics, or even so much as a claim to a procedure for actual counting of corpses.
Again, more transparent tactics from you. You are well-aware a
journalist's opinion based on other claims/opinions is not scientific, not rigorous, not valid.
Nessie wrote:Pointing out gaps in an understanding is not the same as invalidating it entirely. You're saying, "they didn't excavate 100% of the graves, so we have no idea how many corpses are there!", which is ridiculous.
Straw man. I am saying that without a full excavation, it is impossible to quantify how many corpses are buried there. But in any case, since the Nazis cremated and mixed cremains into the ground, they have made quantification nigh on impossible.
It is rather easy to provide a
quantified estimate or range, given the fact that the archaeologists have
defined the dimensions (length x width x depth) of the graves and have
described the densities of each. These characteristics allow us to interpret what is
possible and probable to fit within these graves, and what is not.
Nessie wrote:There is deductive logic and inductive logic.
Evidence is better. But, you don't have any!
Logic is the methodology to interpret evidence and draw conclusions.
Are you really saying that Kola and Mazurek spent years at Sobibor excavating graves including their dimensions and came up with no evidence about graves and their dimensions?
Quick, someone get Mazurek and Kola on the phone! Our very own Nessie knows more than they do!
Nessie wrote:...you cherry pick where few remains were found and ignore the areas not fully excavated, because they were found to contain a high proportion of remains, over earth.
Nessie: which graves are you claiming have a "high proportion of remains"? The graves are numbered -- specify which grave numbers (e.g. Grave 1) you are referring to and
what proportion you would estimate there, based on the description(s) given by Kola/Mazurek.
This is a direct challenge, please do not dodge.
Nessie wrote:I dispute that volume of wood [100s of KG] was required and have shown evidence wood was ordered from polish wood yards and that prisoners would be sent out to gather it locally. You have zero evidence of corpse transports.
You have shown wood was used to build the camp. You have shown zero evidence of hundreds/thousands of mass deliveries for cremation -- you have not even shown
one.
Then again, half of the grave volumes show only
unburnt corpse remains, so you're off-the-hook for some of the wood but then screwed on volume.
Nessie wrote:We already know that Jews were being transported on these trains. That there were some dead Jews also on board would be trivial and expected.
They died during the transport, according to the witnesses.
Ah, so you admit that corpses were arriving at Sobibor as corpses. Would you admit these corpses were cremated? If so, we establish that Jewish corpses are sent to Sobibor for cremation, well-aligned with what I have suggested here.
Nessie wrote:"Excavation research covered only boundary area of mass graves and only to the extent specified by the representative of the Chief Rabbi of Poland, Mr. Alex Schwarz; that is to say they were conducted until buried or unburied human remains were encountered in large quantities or in situ, i.e. until there were no obvious traces, confirming their grave nature."
Yes, this is a quote I shared, Nessie, in my comprehensive analysis of grave composition, which you have not countered at all. What is important is that we can evaluate the extent which "their grave nature" was confirmed, thanks to Mazurek providing
detailed reports explaining what was found in the excavation of each grave, how deep into each the excavation was conducted, and which findings halted further invasion.
Nessie wrote:The above quote is clear, excavations stopped once no obvious traces of remains were found, or, when large quantities were found. A photo example is on page 36, where remains were found in the backfill and the excavation stopped. It shows just how much has been left un-excavated and the potential area for a large volume of cremains.
Yes, I have gone over each of the instances of reported findings and densities, stoppages, etc. What is important is that there are some major graves where this stoppage was almost non-existent. Grave 1 was excavated at great depth, and it was found that almost
no corpse remains are in this grave at all, invalidating Kola's reports here and demonstrating his pattern of exaggeration. This is further reinforced for Grave 2, which only has a smaller 15 x 15 meter core area with minimal cremains overwhelmed by sand. Grave 3/4 turns out to be sand-heavy and
only unburnt remains. Other graves (e.g. Grave 5) has only unburnt remains as well, and Grave 6 also consists largely of sand, and Grave 7 is yet another (like Grave 1) that is ruled out
entirely as a grave (no corpses at all).
You simply claim -- with absolute-zero evidence -- that there must be corpses
somehow in these graves or in some other camp location.
Do you know how stupid this sounds, Nessie? You are forced to pretend you "know" something the chief archaeologists who excavated the site do not. You insist there is hidden corpse density within their grave measurements, or some hidden graves they were too incompetent to find or report on.
This is asinine... and par for the course for Nessie.