Comments on other threads.

[Keen]

I am making the point that no matter what the claim is, the burden of proof is on the claimant.

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.

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.

[Keen]

You have to remember, he isn't very bright.

#2 on the list of all time understatements.

[Keen]

"Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see what you believe." - Saint Augustine, Sermon 43

Excellent. Thank you for that.

[Eye of Zyclone]

Thank you for providing more examples of claims made that have since been evidenced to be false. So you are wrong to claim you cannot prove a negative.

Well tried, but those things were not evidenced to be false. Propagandists just stopped telling those lies because the victorious powers didn't select them for posterity after the end of the wars in which they were used as weapons of psychological warfare, and time did the rest to more or less erase them from public memory.

They were evidenced to be false, or there was no evidence to substantiate them. The Dachau gas chamber is a very good example of how evidence determined if there had been mass killing and gas chambers at a camp.

You couldn't possibly have chosen a worst example!! The victors of WW2 retracted the Dachau gas chamber in the 1960s for damage control purposes, NOT for a reason of democratic [alleged] honesty and free inquiry as too many people wrongly believe or for a reason of compelling counter-evidence as Nessie falsely claims out of desperation.

The Anglo-American propagandists were/are no less liars than the Soviet propagandists. But in the 50s, the Dachau fake gas chamber was increasingly becoming a big source of embarrassment, disbelief and defiance in American-occupied Germany. Consequently, the victors of WW2 decided to shelter their dear gas-chamber lie behind the seemingly-everlasting Iron Curtain by dropping the claim that many people had been mass murdered in gas chambers located on the western side of the Iron Curtain.

If there had been no gas chambers and mass murders, there would be both evidence and a lack of evidence from eyewitnesses, documents and other sources to prove that. For example, if the Kremas were not used for gassings, there would be evidence from people who worked there, who stated there were no gas chambers and you would not find a witness who said that there were gas chambers.

Too bad witness testimonies never proved anything.

They all corroborated and proved the use of gas chambers. You underestimate how all courts find that when an accused and witnesses agree with each other, that is strong corroboration.

Proves nothing. Making an accused confess untrue things is not rocket science. It was the standard procedure at the Soviet show trials, including the ones held in Nuremberg after WW2 in collaboration with the Anglo-American All-Lies.

From the British Chief Prosecutor at the Nuremberg parody of justice :





From another angle, you don't believe that some Zionist Jews in the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia conspired against the Czechoslovak Republic (Slansky Trial) or that Jews murdered Christian kids in order to use their blood for Jewish rituals (blood libel) despite the fact that some Jews confessed to it, do you ?

[Nessie]

It is that sort of error, which makes the claim a mass conspiracy involving the cooperation of the Soviets, Polish, British and the Nazis, possible, all the more incredible.

You consoling yourself by affirming your incredulity is not my problem

Was the purpose of this post passive aggressive abusive bullying? Or was there a point? What was that point? I didn't mention anything about a "massive hoax" and don't care about "massive hoaxes" at all. Such goofy mischaracterizations.

At first glance, Tremblinka seems to be a British corruption of Treblinka. But then in September 1944, the Soviets repeat that misspelling for 12 days -- but not before or after -- during the joint Soviet-Polish investigation/interrogations of the camp.

My questions, which don't have enough evidence (yet?) for an answer:

• Is this an independent, accidental corruption of the camp's name?
• Or was there some contact between British and Soviet-Polish sources that resulted in the perpetuation of the misspelling?
• Or does it originate from some third-party source common to each but independent?

This is a "what actually happened" issue that probably doesn't have a 100% concrete answer, but only more-or-less plausible explanations.

The most plausible being human error that was repeated. The type of human error that makes a conspiracy on the size of the Holocaust implausible, especially when you cannot produce any evidence and all you have is obsessing over details like this.

[Nessie]

Liar.

He may actually believe that a policy to bring inmates to the morgue of krema I before the Kremas at Auschwitz II were operational may have continued to be carried out 'with hand carts' in '43.

You have to remember, he isn't very bright.

You have to use Hanlon's Razor here. For the 'Benefit of Charity'.

Yes fair, but what he believes is his own business. He doesn't get to say "there is no evidence the morgues were morgues" then ignore where he is corrected!

There is evidence they were designed as morgues, and then there is evidence they were converted to gas chambers. You then produce evidence of corpses from around the camp being transported to the Kremas, but no evidence those corpses were stored. There is evidence of 24 hour cremation operations.

[Nessie]

Well tried, but those things were not evidenced to be false. Propagandists just stopped telling those lies because the victorious powers didn't select them for posterity after the end of the wars in which they were used as weapons of psychological warfare, and time did the rest to more or less erase them from public memory.

They were evidenced to be false, or there was no evidence to substantiate them. The Dachau gas chamber is a very good example of how evidence determined if there had been mass killing and gas chambers at a camp.

You couldn't possibly have chosen a worst example!! The victors of WW2 retracted the Dachau gas chamber in the 1960s for damage control purposes, NOT for a reason of democratic [alleged] honesty and free inquiry as too many people wrongly believe or for a reason of compelling counter-evidence as Nessie falsely claims out of desperation.

The claims of mass gassing at Dachau were investigated and the evidence was found that proves they were not used for mass gassing. That proves, again, your claim that it is impossible to prove a negative is wrong.

The Anglo-American propagandists were/are no less liars than the Soviet propagandists. But in the 50s, the Dachau fake gas chamber was increasingly becoming a big source of embarrassment, disbelief and defiance in American-occupied Germany. Consequently, the victors of WW2 decided to shelter their dear gas-chamber lie behind the seemingly-everlasting Iron Curtain by dropping the claim that many people had been mass murdered in gas chambers located on the western side of the Iron Curtain.

...

That is evidence that if the entire Holocaust was a hoax, it would have collapsed by now. Using examples of attempts to claim the use of gas chambers that failed, is not the win you think it is. You are forgetting about the gas chambers on the Western side, that remain evidenced, Mauthausen, Natzweiler-Struthof and at the euthanasia hospitals.

If there had been no gas chambers and mass murders, there would be both evidence and a lack of evidence from eyewitnesses, documents and other sources to prove that. For example, if the Kremas were not used for gassings, there would be evidence from people who worked there, who stated there were no gas chambers and you would not find a witness who said that there were gas chambers.

Too bad witness testimonies never proved anything.

Go and watch some trials and you will see how often witnesses prove crimes. Your claim is ridiculous as the nonsense that it is impossible to prove a negative and you have no burden of proof when you claim gassings were a hoax.

They all corroborated and proved the use of gas chambers. You underestimate how all courts find that when an accused and witnesses agree with each other, that is strong corroboration.

Proves nothing. Making an accused confess untrue things is not rocket science. It was the standard procedure at the Soviet show trials, including the ones held in Nuremberg after WW2 in collaboration with the Anglo-American All-Lies.

....

You would flip and accept witness evidence if they said what you wanted to believe. If, as you claim, witnesses cannot prove anything, then you have collapsed every single police, journalist and historical investigation ever conducted.

From another angle, you don't believe that some Zionist Jews in the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia conspired against the Czechoslovak Republic (Slansky Trial) or that Jews murdered Christian kids in order to use their blood for Jewish rituals (blood libel) despite the fact that some Jews confessed to it, do you ?

...

Examples of witnesses lying does not prove all witnesses lied. If you witnessed a crime, would you accept that your testimony is not evidence and should be dismissed?