Comments on other threads.

[Keen]

Nesserto:

First, describe what the severe, unbiased, robust scientific tests to establish what, if anything is buried at TII, are. The answer is excavations and geophysical surveys. Those tests apply whether one approaches the issue believing or disbelieving that hundreds of thousands of Jews were buried there, or not. I doubt that you can come up with any other form of testing to establish what, or if people were buried there, so those are the tests to falsify any claim made about burials or a lack thereof.

If such archaeological and geophysical surveys find large areas of buried remains and a series of burial pits, then a claim there were no mass burials has been falsified. If those surveys find large areas of undisturbed ground and no burial pits, then a claim of mass burials has been falsified.

The issue is, as I said in the OP, where "results are disputed". You dispute the findings by those who have surveyed TII, who are convinced they have found enough disturbed ground and human remains to prove the claim hundreds of thousands were buried there. What you cannot do, is falsify those results, by producing results that prove large areas of undisturbed ground and no burial pits.

In effect, archaeologists do a better job of falsifying your claim of no mass burials, than you do of falsifying their claim of mass burials. They produce evidence you dispute, you produce no evidence. The archaeologists are also supported by evidence from eyewitnesses, documents and circumstances around the operation of TII as a camp.

...

The Nazis were not trying to magically disappear the corpses and the graves.

All the mass graves dug by the Nazis, and the corpses they cremated, are still at the AR camps.

Mass graves are proven. By all normal standards of evidencing, they are proven.

I can point to them in the ground.

...

Geophysics scientifically and conclusively proves that there are pits, G32, G29, G1, G44, G4, G38, G36, G50, G51, G52, G53, G54 and that they exist. But it does not prove that those pits contain human remains.

The ease in which one can utterly destroy roberto's low IQ drivel above is amazing:

roberto, is it - True. - or - False. - that the USHMM alleges that 925,000 jews were murdered at Treblinka II?

roberto, did the "archaeoligist" CSC identify three shallow pits at Treblinka II that didn't contain so mucha as an iota of human remains as "posible grave sites" - Yes. - or - No. - ??

roberto, how many of the 16 alleged 'huge mass graves" of Treblinka II have been archaeologically proven to contain the remains of at least two people?

roberto, the remains of how many jews were discovered in Treblinka II's "huge mass memorial grave"



??

[Keen]

Monsieur Sceptique:

But forgive me for saying so, I don't think the revisionists here deny that there may have been burials.

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=21706#p21706

Forgive me Monsieur, but one cannot deny something that doesn't exist or that has never been proven to be true.

But yes, most "revisionists," just like the mentally ill exterminationist cult members, do cling to their delusional, unsubstantiated beleif that there really are "huge mass graves" within the boundaries of the "pure extermination centers."

(See here: https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=20014#p20014 - for example.)

It's sad really. Kind of like a retarded 4th grader clinging to a belief in Santa. But here we are.

CSC quote from the same post:

Although without intrusive activity (which is not advocated here due to Halacha Law and the ethical issues involved in the disturbance of human remains) it is not possible to conclusively determine the nature of these pits, a strong case can be made for their function based on a comparison with witness plans and accounts, and with similar features at other sites.

They only started using this lame and discredited excuse after their excavations kept turning up "huge mass graves" like this:



And note that "not advocated" does not mean not allowed.

This was allowed for example:

Sobibor "huge mass grave" number 7

That ladies and genlemen, is what the remains of tens of thousands of magically disappearing jews looks like. (When it's not in liquid form.)

[Nessie]

Nazgul;

viewtopic.php?p=22409#p22409

This started years ago when Nessie questioned the ramp selections and the termination of "useless eaters," wrongly assuming it applied only to Jews.

Nazgul provides no source to back up that claim. He is wrong, I have never questioned the selection and killing process and have always known it was not just Jews who were murdered.

[Nessie]

Hektor;

viewtopic.php?p=22506#p22506

Also not qualifying are are confessions for 'being a guard in Auschwitz', 'taking part in selections' or participation in reprisals.

The selection process is part of the circumstantial evidence as those not selected to work were evidenced to have been gassed.

You will have to come up with a confession were an SS man says that he e.g. threw himself Zyklon B into a room full of Jews/prisoners and that this was part of an extermination program. Rather precise details need to be included, there. Can you think of such a confession?

Testimony from camp staff about gassings here. None admit to throwing in the Zyklon B, but they speak about who gave the orders and seeing it happen.

https://www.auschwitz-prozess.de/zeugen ... geklagten/

They can't give you material evidence for industrial style homicidal gassings. But they come up with - usually ad hominem - arguments why "Holocaust Deniers" are wrong.

There is a ton of corroborating eyewitness, documentary, physical and circumstantial evidence. For example;

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... ce-on.html

There are multiple reasons why so-called revisionists are wrong, including their inability to produce a revised history. Hence they are more accurately called deniers.

[Keen]

There are multiple reasons why so-called revisionists are wrong, including their inability to produce a revised history. Hence they are more accurately called deniers.

“HUGE MASS GRAVES”

are easily identifiable physical entities.

I refuse to believe in the existence of any

physical entity that I am not allowed to see.

If you want me to believe, then simply:

Show me that which you allege I deny.

What are you waiting for Nesserto?

What are you so afraid of?

[Keen]

Nesserto:

List of questions and points you have refused to answer;

viewtopic.php?p=22268#p22268

[Nessie]

Nazgul (AI?)

viewtopic.php?p=22465#p22465

The Industrial Ledger: Observations Over Hearsay

Dutch Survivors

To maintain a rigorous analysis of the Industrial Ledger, we must strip away the postwar rumours and hearsay that survivors often accepted as fact and look strictly at their contemporaneous observations.

Separate hearsay from eyewitness evidence. All of those transported to Sobibor report selections, where the only known survivors were selected to work at Auschwitz. All of those not selected to work, disappeared from the evidential trail, inside the camp. The eyewitness who worked inside the camp variously report a process of the theft of all property, gassing, mass graves and cremations, the same as the other AR camps.

When we do, the 'mercy' narrative for 14f13 and the 'total extermination' myth both collapse under the weight of logistical data.

Both AR and Action 14f13 are proven by corroborating evidence.

It is medically and industrially astounding that hundreds of people arrived at an alleged 'extermination' camp like Sobibor or Majdanek and then simply left on trains to go elsewhere.

There is no evidence for the vast majority of arrivals at the AR camps, that they left.

[Nazgul]

There is no evidence for the vast majority of arrivals at the AR camps, that they left.

You claim logistical data proves total extermination, but the only people we have confirmed logistics for are the ones who left for labor camps. The rest is an assumption based on survivors who, by their own admission, were whisked away to Lublin or Trawniki and couldn't see over the fences.

[Nessie]

There is no evidence for the vast majority of arrivals at the AR camps, that they left.

You claim logistical data proves total extermination,

Strawman. I do not make that claim.

... but the only people we have confirmed logistics for are the ones who left for labor camps. The rest is an assumption based on survivors who, by their own admission, were whisked away to Lublin or Trawniki and couldn't see over the fences.

Wrong. The evidence that the vast majority of arrivals at the AR camps did not leave comes from the eyewitnesses who worked there, the corroborating evidence of mass gassings and the circumstantial evidence of the operation of AR.

You misrepresent the historical evidencing, because you cannot successfully produce a revised history.

[Nazgul]

Wrong. The evidence that the vast majority of arrivals at the AR camps did not leave comes from the eyewitnesses who worked there, the corroborating evidence of mass gassings and the circumstantial evidence of the operation of AR.

You misrepresent the historical evidencing, because you cannot successfully produce a revised history.

Wrong? Actually, the 'eyewitness' record is a map of contradictions.

While you claim eyewitnesses prove arrivals 'did not leave,' other testimonies state the camp was empty, and some describe prisoners packing clothes to move onward. I am examining all the testimony, not just the parts that fit a pre-set narrative.

You rely solely on eye-witness testimony—historically the weakest form of evidence. In Scottish law, for instance, the principle of corroboration is so vital that police always work in pairs to ensure one person’s 'view of events' isn't the sole basis for a case. Without physical or documentary corroboration, a story is just a story.

You frequently speak of 'primary evidence,' yet you invariably retreat to eyewitness accounts. My research focuses on the actual primary documents that corroborate the physical reality:

• Fplo 587 (The logistical schedule)
• The 1939 Protective Memorandum (The legal authorisation for 'Special Treatment')
• The Forensic Reality (The TNT/picric acid poisoning and the dehydration-induced renal failure of the Corfu transport)

[Keen]

There is no evidence for the vast majority of arrivals at the AR camps, that they left.

BELZEC, CHELMNO, PONARY, SOBIBOR and TREBLINKA II

Are the remains of 2.145 million Jews really buried in the 100 alleged “scientifically proven” mass graves?

(The labeling of asking this legitimate adjudicable question as “hate / antisemitic” is your first clue that they do not want you to know what the answer is.)

OPENING / FUNDAMENTAL STATEMENT OF FACT: It is alleged in orthodox historiography that; during WW II, the bodies and burnt remains of hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of Jews were buried in numerous “huge mass graves” at Belzec, Chelmno, Ponary, Sobibor and Treblinka II. However, despite all the deceptive, unsubstantiated allegations to the contrary, the truth is, the largest (in terms of quantity of remains) of the 100 graves in question that are fraudulently alleged to have been “scientifically proven” to currently exist at these five sites, in which verified human remains have been uncovered / tangibly located via bona fide, verifiably honest and conclusively documented archaeology, contained the remains of - ONLY SIX PEOPLE.



Note: Using the information presented on this website and applying legal standards used in U.S. courts, the above opening / fundamental statement of fact, which is written as, and can be defined as - a rebuttable presumption - can be - LEGALLY - ACCEPTED - AS - TRUE - in a U.S. court.

Foundational legal question: Is it reasonable to doubt that the remains of 2.145 million Jews are currently buried in the 100 specifically identified locations in question - Yes. - or - No. - ??

Foundational legal principles that easily expose this transparent archaeological hoax: BURDEN OF PRODUCTION, BURDEN OF PERSUASION & BURDEN OF PROOF.

http://thisisaboutscience.com/

If the physical evidence for an alleged crime that - HAS TO EXIST - for the crime to have

actually happened - DOES NOT EXIST - then the alleged crime obviously - DID NOT HAPPEN.

Ergo: The orthodox “pure extermination center” story is - A PROVEN, NONSENSICAL BIG-LIE.

[Keen]

Strawman. I do not make that claim.

This is the claim that you make:

The Nazis were not trying to magically disappear the corpses and the graves.

All the mass graves dug by the Nazis, and the corpses they cremated, are still at the AR camps.

Mass graves are proven. By all normal standards of evidencing, they are proven.

I can point to them in the ground.

What are you waiting for roberta?

What are you so afraid of?

[Keen]

In Scottish law, for instance, the principle of corroboration is so vital that police always work in pairs to ensure one person’s 'view of events' isn't the sole basis for a case. Without physical or documentary corroboration, a story is just a story.

Well look at that, a revisionist actually focusing on the fact that this is an alleged murder case, not a missing persons case.

If only every revisionist had the sense to focus on this fact and this fact only, and not be distracted by the "then were did they go?" nonsense, then the general public could and would finally understand the big-lies suporting the fraudulently alleged "pure extermination center" cognitive illusion.

[Nazgul]

Well look at that, a revisionist actually focusing on the fact that this is an alleged murder case, not a missing persons case.

If only every revisionist had the sense to focus on this fact and this fact only, and not be distracted by the "then were did they go?" nonsense, then the general public could and would finally understand the big-lies suporting the fraudulently alleged "pure extermination center" cognitive illusion.

A New Framework for Inquiry: Moving Beyond the "Murder Case" Binary

To address the points raised by Greg Gerdes (Keen) and others: I am not approaching this as a "revisionist" in the traditional sense. I am conducting a multi-paradigm forensic audit of the primary data to reach new conclusions that a narrow legal focus might miss.

1. Shifting the Paradigm: From "Murder" to "Industrial Cull"

Focusing solely on the absence of remains in a "murder case" context creates a static debate. My research suggests we should look at the Source Code of the perpetrator: the 1939 Protective Memorandum (Document PS-630).

When we view the Shoah as a continental-scale Medical Cull, the "where did they go?" question is answered by the Logistics of Destruction:

• The Inputs: 18-day transits from Corfu (9 days without water) and chemical poisoning at HASAG plants created a population of Muselmänner. This happened over most of the Reich due to resources going to military.
• The Pathology: These were not "missing persons"; they were "damaged logistical units" arriving in acute renal failure or with nitric acid burns in their lungs. Starvation because of kapo criminality, stealing food.
• The Diagnosis: They were medically unheilbar krank (incurably ill) upon arrival—a "total loss" shipment.

2. The Administrative "Legal Shield" (PS-630)

I agree that the legal standard is key, but the "culling" was pre-authorised by the 1939 Decree. This document provided the legal indemnity for physicians to perform "selections"

• The Doctor at the ramp was the Legal Key. Without a medical signature, the gassing of 1,200 dehydrated people would be murder under the German code.
• By invoking PS-630, the Doctor transformed the act into an authorised Gnadentod (mercy death).

3. An Invitation to Grounded Research

Rather than repeating a six-year "challenge" based on physical anomalies, I invite a look at the interconnected lattice of logistics (Fplo 587), chemistry (TNT/picric acid), and administrative law (PS-630).

The views on these technical threads suggest there is a hunger for this level of forensic detail. We are unpuzzling a tragedy that was legally shielded by Hitler's own signature—a system that treated human beings as livestock to be "culled" when the Reich’s own criminal negligence rendered them unproductive.

Primary Evidence: Nuremberg Document PS-630

[Nessie]

Wrong. The evidence that the vast majority of arrivals at the AR camps did not leave comes from the eyewitnesses who worked there, the corroborating evidence of mass gassings and the circumstantial evidence of the operation of AR.

You misrepresent the historical evidencing, because you cannot successfully produce a revised history.

Wrong? Actually, the 'eyewitness' record is a map of contradictions.

Wrong. All the AR camp workers, Jewish and Nazi speak to exactly the same process of mass transports, stealing property, killing inside chambers, mass graves and cremations. No one speaks to any other process taking place inside the camps.

While you claim eyewitnesses prove arrivals 'did not leave,'

Wrong, I made it clear that the eyewitnesses are corroborated by other evidence and it that corroboration which proves the vast majority did not leave.

...other testimonies state the camp was empty, and some describe prisoners packing clothes to move onward. I am examining all the testimony, not just the parts that fit a pre-set narrative.

Come back when you can produce a revised history for AR, with eyewitnesses who worked inside the camps and whose evidence is corroborated.

You rely solely on eye-witness testimony...

You know that is not true, so you have lied.

—historically the weakest form of evidence.

It is the strongest form of narrative evidence. It is weak when it comes to witnesses recollecting and estimating details.

In Scottish law, for instance, the principle of corroboration is so vital that police always work in pairs to ensure one person’s 'view of events' isn't the sole basis for a case. Without physical or documentary corroboration, a story is just a story.

You frequently speak of 'primary evidence,' yet you invariably retreat to eyewitness accounts. My research focuses on the actual primary documents that corroborate the physical reality:

• Fplo 587 (The logistical schedule)
• The 1939 Protective Memorandum (The legal authorisation for 'Special Treatment')
• The Forensic Reality (The TNT/picric acid poisoning and the dehydration-induced renal failure of the Corfu transport)

You exaggerate the historian's reliance on witness evidence, as you fail to provide a revised version of events.