What is evidence? [remedial education series]

[Keen]

The evidence does the leading. It determines the conclusion.

No stupid, PROOF is what determines the conclusion.

As for my supposed incompetence, failings and laughable debate strategies, what are you talking about?

Here is just one of the myriad examples of your incompetence, failings and laughable debate strategies:

viewtopic.php?t=605

Please note the following quote:

The only time the actual graves have not been excavated or otherwise dug into, was the 2011 Staffs Uni survey at TII. Every other site survey has dug into the graves and disturbed remains.

So why is the mentally ill HC cult member cravenly running away from this:

A - $100.00 reward - is being offered for each one of the 100 alleged “scientifically proven” mass graves / cremation pits in question that is proven - with the same standard of proof applied in U. S. civil courts - to actually exist and to currently contain the remains of - at least 2 people. (That is less than one tenth of one one thousandth of one percent of the alleged mass murder.)

http://thisisaboutscience.com/

What are you waiting for coward?

Talk about failings!

[Nessie]

viewtopic.php?p=25490#p25490

ALLEGEDLY at Treblinka, approximately 700,000 victims were initially buried in massive graves after being allegedly murdered in an alleged ‘extermination camp’.
As the Soviet Army advanced, the Nazis allegedly exhumed and burned the bodies in a supposed attempt to destroy evidence of their alleged crimes under Operation Sonderaktion 1005.
Despite the claim of these efforts, archaeological investigations, historical documents, eyewitness testimonies, and postwar trials have NOT confirmed the existence of the mass graves and the alleged systematic attempt to conceal one of the alleged largest mass murders in history.

Multiple eyewitnesses, Nazi, Jewish and Polish, who speak to the digging of mass graves, along with the photographic and archaeological evidence of disturbed ground in the parts of the camp witnesses identify as having mass graves, is corroborating evidence to prove mass graves.

Holocaust deniers can dispute that evidence all they want, but until they produce evidence from eyewitnesses, archaeology or other sources to prove undisturbed ground and no mass graves, all they have is their dispute. Since that dispute can be aligned to conspiracism and anti-Semitism, the motive is established.

It is a delicious irony that Holocaust deniers try to disprove an event, without knowing how to do so.

[Keen]

Multiple eyewitnesses, Nazi, Jewish and Polish, who speak to the digging of mass graves, along with the photographic and archaeological evidence of disturbed ground in the parts of the camp witnesses identify as having mass graves, is corroborating evidence to prove mass graves.

Liar.

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

[Nessie]

https://nitter.net/CODOH_OFFICIAL/statu ... 33223897#m

"A pile of shoes, in and of itself, proves nothing but the fact that someone has put them there. If it were otherwise, any collection of old clothes and shoes for charities would prove mass murder of the former owners."

Anyone who thinks that one piece of evidence on its own constitutes proof, does not understand evidencing. The piles of shoes and other property are presented as part of the evidence, in this case circumstantial evidence, that proves mass murder. The mass murder is proved by multiple sources of corroborating evidence, from eyewitnesses, documents, physical items, imagery and circumstances.

[borjastick]

Anyone who thinks that one piece of evidence on its own constitutes proof, does not understand evidencing. The piles of shoes and other property are presented as part of the evidence, in this case circumstantial evidence, that proves mass murder. The mass murder is proved by multiple sources of corroborating evidence, from eyewitnesses, documents, physical items, imagery and circumstances.

= classic jewish misdirection and lies.

It all came about because the Russians and the jews caimed there were mass murders at auschwitz in dem gas chambers. Thus the search was on the support such claims but not to prove them. The Russians didn't let investigation into any mass murder sites and that suited the jews and their story telling. Colls soon found that out when old Schlomo Rubinstein cheif jew of Poland told her that if she found any human remains she must sop right there...

It is all supportive rubbish and not suitable for high level scrutiny.

The mass murder is proved by multiple sources of corroborating evidence, from eyewitnesses, documents, physical items, imagery and circumstances

Each and every one of these elements claimed by the fish fryer's wife is imagined and nothing more than smoke and mirrors.

[Nessie]

Anyone who thinks that one piece of evidence on its own constitutes proof, does not understand evidencing. The piles of shoes and other property are presented as part of the evidence, in this case circumstantial evidence, that proves mass murder. The mass murder is proved by multiple sources of corroborating evidence, from eyewitnesses, documents, physical items, imagery and circumstances.

= classic jewish misdirection and lies.

Corroboration is not Jewish misdirection and lies. It is how historians, journalists, the police, scientists and other investigators establish truthfulness, accuracy, reliability.

It all came about because the Russians and the jews caimed there were mass murders at auschwitz in dem gas chambers.

The earliest reports came from Polish and Slovakian sources.

Thus the search was on the support such claims but not to prove them.

There was then a search for evidence to establish if those Polish and Slovakian reports could be proved. A head of British Intelligence, Victor Cavendish-Bentinck is widely quoted in 1943, as saying he did not believe the gassing claims. There were news stories in the US on the reports of mass murder, that many Americans also did not believe.

The Russians didn't let investigation into any mass murder sites and that suited the jews and their story telling.

The Soviets handed over all the sites to the Poles and they conducted the initial investigations. Soviet investigations were limited by Stalin's desire to promote Soviet suffering and their losses at the hands of the Nazis. That is why he never mentioned Jewish losses, and there was no Soviet history of the Holocaust or memorial to it.

Colls soon found that out when old Schlomo Rubinstein cheif jew of Poland told her that if she found any human remains she must sop right there...

It is all supportive rubbish and not suitable for high level scrutiny.

It is standard practice to limit any disturbance of buried human remains. Any excavation at the AR camp sites topped where human remains were found and any that were recovered, were reburied. The 2011 geophysical site survey, found cremated remains on the surface of the ground, during walk over surveys, which were correctly reburied.

The mass murder is proved by multiple sources of corroborating evidence, from eyewitnesses, documents, physical items, imagery and circumstances

Each and every one of these elements claimed by the fish fryer's wife is imagined and nothing more than smoke and mirrors.

The majority of that evidence, comes from Nazi sources. SS camp staff, camp documents and physical remains left behind, make up much of the evidence. It is a denier lie to minimise the sheer volume of evidence.

[Nessie]

It is not just Holocaust revisionists who do not understand evidencing and proof;

viewtopic.php?p=25525#p25525

“I KNOW the holocaust happened because I personally saw a woman with a number tatooed on her fore-arm”.

[Archie]

Multiple eyewitnesses, Nazi, Jewish and Polish, who speak to the digging of mass graves, along with the photographic and archaeological evidence of disturbed ground in the parts of the camp witnesses identify as having mass graves, is corroborating evidence to prove mass graves.

Notice here how Nessie equates "disturbed ground" with actual graves.

Last time I asked him to show me these photographs of the remains, he said the Sturdy Colls thesis had "photos galore" of mass graves. As it turned out, this meant FOUR photographs, and these showed no more than a few bones. When I him out called out for lying, Nessie's defense was that he was being "hyperbolic." So whenever Nessie claims to have abundant evidence, keep in mind that he likes to lie and exaggerate, oh, I mean "speak hyperbolically" and claim he has evidence he doesn't have.

viewtopic.php?p=18016#p18016

[HansHill]

https://nitter.net/CODOH_OFFICIAL/statu ... 33223897#m

"A pile of shoes, in and of itself, proves nothing but the fact that someone has put them there. If it were otherwise, any collection of old clothes and shoes for charities would prove mass murder of the former owners."

Anyone who thinks that one piece of evidence on its own constitutes proof, does not understand evidencing. The piles of shoes and other property are presented as part of the evidence, in this case circumstantial evidence, that proves mass murder. The mass murder is proved by multiple sources of corroborating evidence, from eyewitnesses, documents, physical items, imagery and circumstances.

Firstly, have you even watched the video in the OP of the thread you are commenting on? You admitted before that you were commenting on it without even knowing what it was, which made you look foolish.

Secondly, I suspect that's still the case because you are doubling down in your foolishness like always.

...Stubble obviously knows it isn't proof of anything, he is asking contextually in light of the video presented that you must not have watched, where indeed it is discussed about using shoes as the "best evidence", as opposed to, say, "scattered skulls" that were left behind by Bermann according to his own quote. Why chose a shoe over a skull?

Stop being disingenuous. Stop your incessant stream of slop.

In the video you didn't watch, Bermann states he chose shoes over say, "scattered skulls" specifically, and Colls comments on this choice for their emotive power. Choosing shoes over a skull for evidentiary value can only be interpreted in this way, no other view is possible.

"B-b-but it's proof the jews are not still wearing them"

????

[Stubble]

https://nitter.net/CODOH_OFFICIAL/statu ... 33223897#m

"A pile of shoes, in and of itself, proves nothing but the fact that someone has put them there. If it were otherwise, any collection of old clothes and shoes for charities would prove mass murder of the former owners."

Anyone who thinks that one piece of evidence on its own constitutes proof, does not understand evidencing. The piles of shoes and other property are presented as part of the evidence, in this case circumstantial evidence, that proves mass murder. The mass murder is proved by multiple sources of corroborating evidence, from eyewitnesses, documents, physical items, imagery and circumstances.

Firstly, have you even watched the video in the OP of the thread you are commenting on? You admitted before that you were commenting on it without even knowing what it was, which made you look foolish.

Secondly, I suspect that's still the case because you are doubling down in your foolishness like always.

...Stubble obviously knows it isn't proof of anything, he is asking contextually in light of the video presented that you must not have watched, where indeed it is discussed about using shoes as the "best evidence", as opposed to, say, "scattered skulls" that were left behind by Bermann according to his own quote. Why chose a shoe over a skull?

Stop being disingenuous. Stop your incessant stream of slop.

In the video you didn't watch, Bermann states he chose shoes over say, "scattered skulls" specifically, and Colls comments on this choice for their emotive power. Choosing shoes over a skull for evidentiary value can only be interpreted in this way, no other view is possible.

"B-b-but it's proof the jews are not still wearing them"

????

Check out the OP on that nitter/x thread. It's something.

Among the most heartbreaking exhibits at Auschwitz are the children’s shoes. Each pair belonged to a child with a name, a family, dreams, and a future. Seeing them together is a reminder that behind every number was a human life.

I mean, they are shoes...