Why does Keen refuse to debate?

[Nessie]

A quick look at some of Keen's more recent posts and he is still refusing to conduct himself in a manner that would make a debate possible and worthwhile. Nothing has changed from when I wrote the OP in this thread.

[Keen]

Nothing has changed from when I wrote the OP in this thread.

Meaning of course, that you are still a lying, cowardly POS who lacks the intelligence, courage, integrity and character to defend your unsubstantiated allegations.



Why does nessie refuse to debate?

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.

nesserto:

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.

nick terry:

Everyone making a claim has to substantiate it.

[Keen]

Keen is too scared to debate me

Nesserto, is it - True. - or - False. - that the so-called "eyewitness" Jankiel Wiernik was given the opportunity to definitively prove that he was telling the truth about the "huge mass graves" that he alleged existed within the boundary of the Treblnka II camp - ??

[Keen]

It's time to update nessie's long list of lies about Treblinka II.

But first this:

Caroline Sturdy Colls:

Without intrusive activity, it is not possible to conclusively determine the nature of these pits.

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.

nessie, 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: _?_.

nessie's answer:

I don't know.

nessie:

Geophysics scientifically and conclusively proves that there are pits and that they exist. But it does not prove that those pits contain human remains.

* * * * *

nessie:

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.

nessie:

You doubt and deny the evidence I produce.

Impossible claims and verifiably false details do not prove lying.

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.

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.

No matter what the claim is, the burden of proof is on the claimant.

I have never had any issue with accepting the burden of proof.

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

* * * * *

Two simple foundational questioins for the mentally ill pathological liar:

cor·rob·or·ation

evidence which confirms or supports a statement or theory

#1: When you disingenuously use the word "corroboration", do you mean "confirm" or "support"?

#2: When you disingenuously use the word "prove" in alleging that 12 actual "huge mass graves" have actually been proven to actually exist within the boundary of the Treblinka II camp (G32, G29, G1, G44, G4, G38, G36, G50, G51, G52, G53, G54), which of the following standards of proof are you alleging:

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

[Keen]

Caroline Sturdy Colls BEFORE her fraudulent "investigation" of Treblinka II:

CSC:

One of the main aims of this research is to demonstrate the survivability of the remains.

This research will focus upon the search for the physical remains, thus the remains will be identified, recorded.

Caroline Sturdy Colls AFTER her fraudulent "investigation" of Treblinka II:

CSC:

Without intrusive activity, it is not possible to conclusively determine the nature of these pits.

And what does nessie have to say about this?

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.

nessie, 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: _?_.

nessie's answer:

I don't know.

nessie:

Geophysics scientifically and conclusively proves that there are pits and that they exist. But it does not prove that those pits contain human remains.

And what does nessie have to say about Bigfoot and aliens and such:

nessie:

They have been evidenced to not exist, by a failure to find evidence of their existence

* * * * *

nessie:

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.

nessie:

You doubt and deny the evidence I produce.

Impossible claims and verifiably false details do not prove lying.

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.

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.

No matter what the claim is, the burden of proof is on the claimant.

I have never had any issue with accepting the burden of proof.

There is no circumstance in which I reverse the burden of proof.

If you make a claim, it is up to you to prove it. If I make one, it is up to me.

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

* * * * *

Two simple foundational questioins for the mentally ill pathological liar:


#1: When you disingenuously use the word "corroboration", do you mean "confirm" or "support"?

#2: When you disingenuously use the word "prove" in alleging that 12 actual "huge mass graves" have actually been proven to actually exist within the boundary of the Treblinka II camp (G32, G29, G1, G44, G4, G38, G36, G50, G51, G52, G53, G54), which of the following standards of proof are you alleging:

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