Evidence proves historians are correct.

[Keen]

Archie states;

Saying that you are right because such and such "is evidenced" is too generic.

But, that is how we establish history, with evidence. If it is suggested that a historical event did not take place, but revised histories are not evidenced, then the evidenced history wins.

That also applies to medicine, criminal investigation and the sciences. Evidenced theories beat unevidenced hypothesis. Evidenced accusations beat unevidenced accusations. Evidence wins.

So-called revisionists do not like evidencing, because the evidence is against them, so they try to argue and hate having their evidential failures pointed out to them.

Mass graves / human remains are physical entities.

One needs RELEVANT physical evidence to prove the existence of a physical entity.

And we all know that:

NO RELEVANT PHYSICAL EVIDENCE - PROVES - NO MASS GRAVES

Imagine someone "evidencing" their allegation that thay had 2.145 million pennies in their pants pockets by showing you this:

https://tse1.explicit.bing.net/th/id/OI ... 7&rm=3jpg.

Proof of 6 pennies in your hand is no more evidence of having 2.145 pennies in your pockets than proof of the remains of 6 people:

https://infocenters.co.il/gfh/multimedi ... _1_web.jpg

is evidence of the remains of 2.145 million people buried in 100 mass graves.

Nessie has no clear, convincing and credible evidence, nor does he have any relevant physical evidence to substantiate his absurd allegations of mass murder / burial.

IF there really were 100 "scientifically proven huge mass graves" there would literally be tons of physical evidence to prove it.

[Keen]

Archie states;

Saying that you are right because such and such "is evidenced" is too generic.

But, that is how we establish history, with evidence. If it is suggested that a historical event did not take place, but revised histories are not evidenced, then the evidenced history wins.

That also applies to medicine, criminal investigation and the sciences. Evidenced theories beat unevidenced hypothesis. Evidenced accusations beat unevidenced accusations. Evidence wins.

So-called revisionists do not like evidencing, because the evidence is against them, so they try to argue and hate having their evidential failures pointed out to them.

Mass graves / human remains are physical entities.

One needs RELEVANT physical evidence to prove the existence of a physical entity.

And we all know that:

NO RELEVANT PHYSICAL EVIDENCE - PROVES - NO MASS GRAVES

Imagine someone "evidencing" their allegation that thay had 2.145 million pennies in their pants pockets by showing you this:

https://tse1.explicit.bing.net/th/id/OI ... 7&rm=3jpg.

Proof of 6 pennies in your hand is no more evidence of having 2.145 pennies in your pants pockets than proof of the remains of 6 people in two small graves:

https://infocenters.co.il/gfh/multimedi ... _1_web.jpg

is evidence of the remains of 2.145 million people buried in 100 "huge mass graves".

Nessie has no clear, convincing and credible evidence, nor does he have any relevant physical evidence to substantiate his absurd allegations of mass murder / burial.

IF there really were 100 "scientifically proven huge mass graves" there would literally be tons of physical evidence to prove it.

[TlsMS93]

Archie states;

Saying that you are right because such and such "is evidenced" is too generic.

But, that is how we establish history, with evidence. If it is suggested that a historical event did not take place, but revised histories are not evidenced, then the evidenced history wins.

That also applies to medicine, criminal investigation and the sciences. Evidenced theories beat unevidenced hypothesis. Evidenced accusations beat unevidenced accusations. Evidence wins.

So-called revisionists do not like evidencing, because the evidence is against them, so they try to argue and hate having their evidential failures pointed out to them.

Mass graves / human remains are physical entities.

One needs RELEVANT physical evidence to prove the existence of a physical entity.

And we all know that:

NO RELEVANT PHYSICAL EVIDENCE - PROVES - NO MASS GRAVES

Imagine someone "evidencing" their allegation that thay had 2.145 million pennies in their pants pockets by showing you this:

https://tse1.explicit.bing.net/th/id/OI ... 7&rm=3jpg.

Proof of 6 pennies in your hand is no more evidence of having 2.145 pennies in your pants pockets than proof of the remains of 6 people in two small graves:

https://infocenters.co.il/gfh/multimedi ... _1_web.jpg

is evidence of the remains of 2.145 million people buried in 100 "huge mass graves".

Nessie has no clear, convincing and credible evidence, nor does he have any relevant physical evidence to substantiate his absurd allegations of mass murder / burial.

IF there really were 100 "scientifically proven huge mass graves" there would literally be tons of physical evidence to prove it.

The evidence for Nessie is the holed pocket, that is, the stirred soil that he believes is enough to fit the alleged amount, the 6 cents are the coincidence or luck of not having fallen out of the pocket or the bodies that could not be cremated due to lack of non-existent wood or lack of body fat.

[Keen]

Physical evidence has been recovered from the ruins... You have lied about and misrepresented the evidence.

You want to talk about lies and physical evidence Nessie?

OK, let's do it - right here in this thread.

[Keen]

The evidence for Nessie is the holed pocket, that is, the stirred soil that he believes is enough to fit the alleged amount

But he has yet to show us a "huge mass grave" filled with "stirred soil" - unless you count this:



as one such example of his alleged "huge mass graves".

Maybe he will finally show us his "evidence" of such in this thread???

Nessie has no clear, convincing and credible evidence, nor does he have any relevant physical evidence to substantiate his absurd allegations of mass murder / burial.

[Keen]

The evidence for Nessie is the holed pocket, that is, the stirred soil...

The "stirred soil" theory is nothing but the "magically disappearing jew" theory with a new name.

One still needs a pair of these:



to see this alleged "stirred soil".

[Keen]

Evidenced theories beat unevidenced hypothesis.

So this magic "stirred soil" theory of yours is "evidenced"?

If I put 5 pounds of bone fragments and 100 teeth into a big pot and then stirred in one pound of soil, there would still be 5 pounds of bone fragments and 100 teeth in the pot, correct?

I'm having trouble seeing the magic in this magical theory of yours.

How many pounds of soil would I have to stir into a pot that contains 5 pounds of bone fragments and 100 teeth before the magic kicks in and makes the bones and teeth invisible?

Is there some kind of magical ingredient that I don't know about that I would have to add to the soil?

Hogwarts perhaps?

[Keen]

If it is suggested that a historical event did not take place, but revised histories are not evidenced, then the evidenced history wins.

But if fraudulently "evidenced" history is trumped by legally established fact, then the legally proven history wins.

An example of the above can be seen here:

https://thisisaboutscience.com/

where the 100 fraudulently alleged "evidenced huge mass graves" of Belzec, Chelmno, Ponary, Sobibor and Treblinka II have been trumped by legally established fact.

Legally proven history trumps fraudulently alleged history every time.