Archaeological Evidence of Mass Graves at Treblinka II

[Nessie]

Well not really since he believes everything he is told

That's demonstrably false, it doesn't matter how many time or ways I tell him...

You will need 'eyewitnesses'. Trustworthiness and consistancy of them is unimportant, and they can all describe completely different bridges.

The most accurate and reliable method for determining witness truthfulness, is corroboration. Truthfulness is more important than credibility, because a witness can be credible and lying through their teeth. If you only assess how credible the witness is, you may fall for the lies of a credible one.

To stay on topic, the corroborative evidence for mass graves at TII comes from;

- every single Jewish Sonderkommando and SS camp staff, who worked there.
- the 1944 aerial photo showing disturbed ground and rectangular outlines
- the 1945 Polish site survey that found large areas of disturbed ground containing cremated remains.
- the digging by grave robbers from 1945 onwards, that unearthed cremated remains.
- the 1966 site memorialisation work, that identified areas of human remains, to then cover them with concrete to prevent grave robbing.
- the 2011 geophysical survey, that identified specific areas of disturbed ground and found cremated remains on the surface.
- the circumstantial evidence of mass transports of people arriving at the camp, and very few leaving.

[joshk246]

Which is all the more reason why it would be unreasonable to expect witnesses to recollect the correct dimensions. The passage of time helps to explain why witnesses described grave sizes, that were too big to fit inside the camp.

Oh dear Nessie… those statements of a 200m long incineration trench were not decades after the war, unlike the 2 statements you provided.

I never said that the descriptions of a 200m long trench were made decades after the war. They were made around 2 years after the event, which is easily enough time for memory to fade and make it even more unlikely a witness would estimate a dimension correctly.

No you did not outright say that, but that certainly seemed to be the insinuation. Why else would you lump the 200m long trench statement in with the statements made by a man who died right before said statements of him were published in 1970.
Those two statements are not comparable when talking about confessions made after years have elapsed from WW2.

(The mushroom cloud one is funny, why would you include that?)

It is because that is what he is quoted as saying. What is funny about a mushroom cloud? I have seen fires that caused a mushroom cloud.

Do you have any other statements of this mushroom cloud, preferably not decades post war.

I do not remember, from the statements that I have read, any other description of a mushroom cloud. There are a lot of statements, I have not fully read, due to lack of availability of online translations.

Post them in here and quote me if you do find some.

How is one supposed to ascertain that Suchomel hadn't read Gitta's book about Stangl's 'confessions', also 'confessions' which are conducted decades after the 'holocaust narrative" has been engrained in society, are not serious evidence.

That is just speculation. So-called revisionists like to speculate and it is far easier than it is to evidence Suchomel had read and been influenced by Gitts's book, or that she made up what Stangl said. Most of so-called revisionism is just speculation.

So called ‘witnesses’ speculate much worse and cry out about ridiculous impossibilities, yet affirmers take that as gospel…

Historians and others, with experience and training in witness evidence, know not to take witness descriptions literally and to look for corroboration, to determine truthfulness. So-called revisionists, with no relevant training, make constant mistakes when assessing witness evidence.

And holocaustarians never make mistakes when they are the ones who take witness descriptions literally?...
I mean c'mon now, this is just pure projection on your end.

[Nessie]

I never said that the descriptions of a 200m long trench were made decades after the war. They were made around 2 years after the event, which is easily enough time for memory to fade and make it even more unlikely a witness would estimate a dimension correctly.

No you did not outright say that, but that certainly seemed to be the insinuation. Why else would you lump the 200m long trench statement in with the statements made by a man who died right before said statements of him were published in 1970.
Those two statements are not comparable when talking about confessions made after years have elapsed from WW2.

All statements by those who worked inside TII, are relevant. When Stangl states there were mass graves, and so do Jewish Sonderkommandos, that is corroboration. It is also strong corroboration, because it is accuser and accused agreeing, with no evidence of collusion. That every camp workers states there were mass graves, along with local Poles who saw excavators inside the camp and the archaeological evidence of mass graves, then that all corroborates and proves mass graves.

It is because that is what he is quoted as saying. What is funny about a mushroom cloud? I have seen fires that caused a mushroom cloud.

Do you have any other statements of this mushroom cloud, preferably not decades post war.

I do not remember, from the statements that I have read, any other description of a mushroom cloud. There are a lot of statements, I have not fully read, due to lack of availability of online translations.

Post them in here and quote me if you do find some.

That is just speculation. So-called revisionists like to speculate and it is far easier than it is to evidence Suchomel had read and been influenced by Gitts's book, or that she made up what Stangl said. Most of so-called revisionism is just speculation.

So called ‘witnesses’ speculate much worse and cry out about ridiculous impossibilities, yet affirmers take that as gospel…

Historians and others, with experience and training in witness evidence, know not to take witness descriptions literally and to look for corroboration, to determine truthfulness. So-called revisionists, with no relevant training, make constant mistakes when assessing witness evidence.

And holocaustarians never make mistakes when they are the ones who take witness descriptions literally?...
I mean c'mon now, this is just pure projection on your end.

Historians and other investigators, have not taken the witnesses literally. They know not to. They know what to expect from witnesses, their descriptions, fading memory and poor estimations.

[joshk246]

I never said that the descriptions of a 200m long trench were made decades after the war. They were made around 2 years after the event, which is easily enough time for memory to fade and make it even more unlikely a witness would estimate a dimension correctly.

No you did not outright say that, but that certainly seemed to be the insinuation. Why else would you lump the 200m long trench statement in with the statements made by a man who died right before said statements of him were published in 1970.
Those two statements are not comparable when talking about confessions made after years have elapsed from WW2.

All statements by those who worked inside TII, are relevant. When Stangl states there were mass graves, and so do Jewish Sonderkommandos, that is corroboration. It is also strong corroboration, because it is accuser and accused agreeing, with no evidence of collusion. That every camp workers states there were mass graves, along with local Poles who saw excavators inside the camp and the archaeological evidence of mass graves, then that all corroborates and proves mass graves.

It is because that is what he is quoted as saying. What is funny about a mushroom cloud? I have seen fires that caused a mushroom cloud.

Do you have any other statements of this mushroom cloud, preferably not decades post war.

I do not remember, from the statements that I have read, any other description of a mushroom cloud. There are a lot of statements, I have not fully read, due to lack of availability of online translations.

Post them in here and quote me if you do find some.

That is just speculation. So-called revisionists like to speculate and it is far easier than it is to evidence Suchomel had read and been influenced by Gitts's book, or that she made up what Stangl said. Most of so-called revisionism is just speculation.

So called ‘witnesses’ speculate much worse and cry out about ridiculous impossibilities, yet affirmers take that as gospel…

Historians and others, with experience and training in witness evidence, know not to take witness descriptions literally and to look for corroboration, to determine truthfulness. So-called revisionists, with no relevant training, make constant mistakes when assessing witness evidence.

And holocaustarians never make mistakes when they are the ones who take witness descriptions literally?...
I mean c'mon now, this is just pure projection on your end.

Historians and other investigators, have not taken the witnesses literally. They know not to. They know what to expect from witnesses, their descriptions, fading memory and poor estimations.

There are no mass graves + I do not care for liewitness statements, especially when said liewitnesses changed their story numerously and talk of impossible outside cremation pyres and wooden trunks used to smash bones.

[Nessie]

....
There are no mass graves + I do not care for liewitness statements, especially when said liewitnesses changed their story numerously and talk of impossible outside cremation pyres and wooden trunks used to smash bones.

That you do not believe the witnesses, does not therefore mean you have proved there were no mass graves. To do that, you need evidence there were no mass graves, such as a witness who speaks to no mass graves being dug, or a GPR survey showing undisturbed ground.

[joshk246]

....
There are no mass graves + I do not care for liewitness statements, especially when said liewitnesses changed their story numerously and talk of impossible outside cremation pyres and wooden trunks used to smash bones.

That you do not believe the witnesses, does not therefore mean you have proved there were no mass graves. To do that, you need evidence there were no mass graves, such as a witness who speaks to no mass graves being dug, or a GPR survey showing undisturbed ground.

That you do believe the witnesses, does not mean you have proved there are mass graves.
Just one photo of a mass grave inside TII with more than 10 bodies exhumed from it.