Nessie wrote: ↑Wed Oct 29, 2025 7:34 am
Callafangers wrote: ↑Tue Oct 28, 2025 8:28 pm
Nessie is really struggling here. He says (again):
Nessie wrote:The area, of 2 hectares, is the size of the area in TII, where the witnesses located the main mass graves.
But it looks like he missed a
key point in the OP. Here is the only time Judge Lukaszkiewicz mentions "2 hectares":
In the northwestern section of the area, the surface is covered for about 2 hectares by a mixture of ashes and sand.
https://holocausthandbooks.com/wp-conte ... 8-torc.pdf
"In the northwestern section of the area,
the surface is covered for about 2 hec-
tares by a mixture of ashes and sand.
In this mixture, one finds countless hu-
man bones, often still covered with tissue remains, which are in a condition of
decomposition. During the inspection, which I made with the assistance of an
expert in forensic medicine, it was determined that the ashes are without any
doubt of human origin (remains of cremated human bones). The examination of
human skulls could discover no trace of wounding. At a distance of some 100
m, there is now an unpleasant odor of burning and decay."
Nessie is so terribly confused right now. SAD.
I have been kind enough to
bold and
green the text above which Nessie doesn't seem to understand.
This description ONLY speaks to what is ON THE SURFACE.
ALL of the decaying/cremated matter being spoke of here is what is ON THE SURFACE, per Judge L's own explicit and exclusive words/phrasing.
Nessie wrote:Why did you miss out the part about decaying cremated human remains?
I didn't -- you simply misunderstood it (see above).
Nessie wrote:Where is your evidence that the crater they further excavated, was the only part of the 2 hectare area that contained buried remains?
Because it is the
only location for which they mention such remains. Why on Earth would I infer human remains where such remains are not mentioned at all?
Nessie wrote:What about all the eyewitnesses who located mass graves in that area?
What about the witnesses who said things which are known to be false? And if the witnesses claim an elephant is buried there, but no elephant is found when digging, it means the elephant is probably not there. Forensic investigation (if legitimate, and I'll entertain the idea that this is possibly the case) always trumps 'witnesses'.
Nessie wrote:What about the 2011 geophysical survey that located 5 pits in that area?
How many corpses were actually measured in this 2011 survey? Don't tell me about 'disturbances', since this 1945 survey clearly shows all kinds of disturbances that did not entail corpses.
Nessie wrote:You dishonestly cherry-pick only a small part of the evidence, to reach your suggested conclusion.
This is you projecting, very strongly. Sad.