What is evidence? [remedial education series]

[Keen]

There is corroborating evidence... Therefore they existed and the witnesses did not lie.

nessie:

A mass grave is defined as a grave containing multiple human corpses, or the remains of multiple people.

So a pit containing the remains of multiple people would be, according to you, a mass grave, correct?

What if the pit contained the bones of multiple animals - would you still consider that to be a "mass grave"?

When surveys find large areas of disturbed ground, with identifiable pits, littered with human remains...

"Human remains" you say? Where are the skulls?

Photos of TII, from the 1945 surveys, showing the site after grave robbing activity

nessie, are the above photos of a mass grave / mass graves at Treblinka II - Yes. - or - No. - ??

If your answer is - Yes. - then;

Are they photos of the same mass grave taken from different angles, or two separate mass graves?

Also, If your answer is - Yes. - then;

What is the number / numbers for this / these grave / graves?



We still haven't seen so-much-as a shoe box amount of cremated remains.

What are you waiting for nessie?

What are you so afraid of?

[Nessie]

viewtopic.php?p=25838#p25838

The bogus claims of a genocide by mass-gassing at the sites claimed, by the methods claimed, on the scale claimed has been refuted.

That claim is false, because to refute the evidence of mass gassings at certain sites, you would need new evidence. For example, people who worked at those sites who stated there were no mass gassings and what took place instead, which happened when claims were made about mass gassing at Dachau and Bergen-Belsen. The SS camp staff denied there had been gassings. They could account for the prisoners, with camp documents, showing transports and no mass disappearance of people shortly after they arrived. That leads to another example of evidence that would refute the mass gassing claims, which would be documents recording mass transports back out of the camps, meaning, obviously those people cannot have been killed.

Evidence is not someone who denies gassings took place, explaining why they deny. Their opinion on the viability of gas chambers, or the possibilities of killing so many people, is not evidence.

[Keen]

To refute the evidence of mass gassings at certain sites, you would need new evidence.

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.

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.

https://thisisaboutscience.com/

[Nessie]

HansHill;

viewtopic.php?p=25852#p25852

While I can accept "they are lying" may be speculative, "they are describing different non-viable processes" is certainly not speculative. I can hold opinions about "why they lied", but that's not the topic of this thread.

HansHill admits he has no evidence the witnesses lied and he is merely speculating. It is merely his opinion that they are describing something different and that it would not work. It is in fact clear from the descriptions they are describing the same object that was used in Kremas II and III and there is evidence it worked.

Opinions on lying are not the same as evidence of lying. I am sure if someone accused HansHill of lying, he would like them to have evidence and not just to be relying on their opinion.

[HansHill]

Good one Nessie

[Nessie]

HansHill again!

viewtopic.php?p=25898#p25898

Its non-viable due the positive descriptions that are present in the record.

How is a metal mesh column used to pour in and then retrieve Zyklon B pellets, non-viable as a mechanism, because of the way it has been described by eye-witnesses?

To give just one example, its non-viable because, it has not been demonstrated or explained how to outpace a US prison execution using less gas, for more victims, in a sub-optimal configuration.

How is the gas chamber inside the Leichenkeller non-viable, because how it could work has not been explained to your satisfaction, when compared to a US execution chamber?

Is viability not best determined by evidence? When there is evidence of a column inside a gas chamber, that worked, that proves it was viable.

[HansHill]

The rate of offgassing is retarded under moist conditions and where the pellets are clumped together.

Know what else is retarded?

Spoiler

Me, for engaging with you.

[Nessie]

The rate of offgassing is retarded under moist conditions and where the pellets are clumped together.

Know what else is retarded?

Spoiler

Me, for engaging with you.

This again falls under the argument that your inability to work out, to your satisfaction, how the Leichenkellers could have viably functioned, as mass gas chambers, is not evidence to prove there were no such chambers. To prove there were no such gas chambers, you need evidence from eyewitnesses, documents, physical remains etc, that corroborate to provide a chronology of usage of the building that did not involve mass gassings.