What standard of proof are you alleging roberto?Claiming that multiple pits found by geophysics in the same part of the camp that witnesses state the main mass graves were dug, is not corroborating evidence to prove mass graves, is denial of reality.
Also nesserto: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.
Which one is it nesserto?Claiming that multiple pits found by geophysics in the same part of the camp that witnesses state the main mass graves were dug, is not corroborating evidence to prove mass graves, is denial of reality.
A mass grave is defined as a grave containing multiple human corpses, or the remains of multiple people.
Nesserto, 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: _?_.
Nesserto's answer:
I don't know.
My standard of proof is the same as historians or the courts use, whereby an event is proven when there is sufficient corroborating verified evidence to prove it.
nesserto:
A mass grave is defined as a grave containing multiple human corpses, or the remains of multiple people.
Nessie, how many actual mass graves did CSC actually prove actually exist within the boundary of the Treblinka II camp?
Nessie's answer:
12 - G32, G29, G1, G44, G4, G38, G36, G50, G51, G52, G53, G54.
You doubt and deny the evidence I produce.
The evidence TII was a death camp, far exceeds the evidence it had a different function. Only a determined denier, who has lost grip on reality, will pretend that the corroborating evidence from multiple witnesses who describe mass graves, the aerial photo that shows disturbed ground and rectangular outlines and the site surveys that identified disturbed ground and pits in the areas of the camp that the witnesses said contained the mass graves, is not evidence to prove mass graves.
I am both a trained historian and police officer.
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.
Proof, from multiple sources of corroborating evidence, has been produced.
You ignore corroboration. You deny the gathered evidence.
Claiming that multiple pits found by geophysics in the same part of the camp that witnesses state the main mass graves were dug, is not corroborating evidence to prove mass graves, is denial of reality.
I can point to them in the ground.
I have never had any issue with accepting the burden of proof.
Arranged from lowest to highest, the standards of proof in American law follow a rough hierarchy:
Reasonable suspicion: Enough specific facts to justify a brief police stop, but well short of what’s needed for an arrest or a search warrant.
Probable cause: A fair probability that a crime occurred or evidence will be found, sufficient for an arrest or warrant.
Substantial evidence: Enough that a reasonable person could accept it as adequate, used when courts review agency decisions.
Preponderance of the evidence: More likely than not, the default for most civil lawsuits.
Clear and convincing evidence: Highly probable, reserved for civil matters with serious consequences like fraud claims or termination of parental rights.
Beyond a reasonable doubt: Firm conviction of guilt, required for all criminal convictions.
Nessie, is it - True. - or - False. - that; Non-nefarious diggings for such things as garbage pits, cellars, wells, latrines, septic pits, etc. - were dug at Treblinka II - ??
Nessie's answer:
True
And we will get to this later:Nessie:
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.
CSC:
Without intrusive activity it is not possible to conclusively determine the nature of these pits.
You suggest that Wiernik lied... because you just do not want to believe his evidence about mass murder.
Two simple foundational questioins for the mentally ill pathological liar:Nesserto:
My standard of proof is the same as historians or the courts use, whereby an event is proven when there is sufficient corroborating verified evidence to prove it.
A mass grave is defined as a grave containing multiple human corpses, or the remains of multiple people.
Only a determined denier, who has lost grip on reality, will pretend that the corroborating evidence from multiple witnesses who describe mass graves, the aerial photo that shows disturbed ground and rectangular outlines and the site surveys that identified disturbed ground and pits in the areas of the camp that the witnesses said contained the mass graves, is not evidence to prove mass graves.Nessie, how many actual mass graves did CSC actually prove actually exist within the boundary of the Treblinka II camp?
Nessie's answer:
12 - G32, G29, G1, G44, G4, G38, G36, G50, G51, G52, G53, G54.
You doubt and deny the evidence I produce.
I am both a trained historian and police officer.
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.
Proof, from multiple sources of corroborating evidence, has been produced.
You ignore corroboration. You deny the gathered evidence.
Claiming that multiple pits found by geophysics in the same part of the camp that witnesses state the main mass graves were dug, is not corroborating evidence to prove mass graves, is denial of reality.
I can point to them in the ground.
I do not avoid discussing the empirical evidence.
I have never had any issue with accepting the burden of proof.
#1: When you use the word "corroboration", do you mean "confirm" or "support"?cor·rob·or·ation
evidence which confirms or supports a statement or theory
Arranged from lowest to highest, the standards of proof in American law follow a rough hierarchy:
Reasonable suspicion: Enough specific facts to justify a brief police stop, but well short of what’s needed for an arrest or a search warrant.
Probable cause: A fair probability that a crime occurred or evidence will be found, sufficient for an arrest or warrant.
Substantial evidence: Enough that a reasonable person could accept it as adequate, used when courts review agency decisions.
Preponderance of the evidence: More likely than not, the default for most civil lawsuits.
Clear and convincing evidence: Highly probable, reserved for civil matters with serious consequences like fraud claims or termination of parental rights.
Beyond a reasonable doubt: Firm conviction of guilt, required for all criminal convictions.
Absolute certainty: A state of knowledge or proof so complete that there is no possibility of doubt or uncertainty