Falsification

[Nessie]

Jesus Mary and Joseph, did nessie defend Gerstein?

I, I'm not sure where to even start skinning that cat. It is like that Far Side where the dog catches the car and flips is over and says 'Now what do I do with it'.

I mean, where do you start.

Gerstein's statement is, false. F-A-L-S-E.

As I said in the OP, "Eyewitness can be partially falsified, as in part of what they claim is evidenced to be true, or correct or a good recollection of events and part is wrong, mistaken or even a lie. Pretty much every single eyewitness to gassings and shootings can be partially falsified, as it is likely they at least made mistakes, when recalling what they saw."

Gerstein, is partially falsified. Fuchs and others who worked with the engines used for gassings, described them as petrol. Since they are eyewitnesses, their evidence falsifies Gerstein's claim a diesel engine was used. That he is falsified about the type of engine used, does not therefore mean the entirety of his testimonial evidence is now falsified. Much of what he said, is corroborated and so proven to be truthful.

[HansHill]

Claim: ~800,000 people were gassed with engine exhaust, buried, exhumed, cremated, and reburied.

Falsification criteria: inoperability of gassing method, lack of mass grave space for original ~800,000 corpse volume, inoperability of cremation process, lack of remains for ~800,000 cremains & wood ash mixture.

Case closed.

"B-b-but"

Case closed.

[Nessie]

Claim: ~800,000 people were gassed with engine exhaust, buried, exhumed, cremated, and reburied.

Falsification criteria: inoperability of gassing method, lack of mass grave space for original ~800,000 corpse volume, inoperability of cremation process, lack of remains for ~800,000 cremains & wood ash mixture.

Case closed.

"B-b-but"

Case closed.

Your falsification criteria are incorrect. The criteria should be evidence, not opinion based.

Your opinion on the inoperability of the gassings and cremations is based on incomplete evidence, tainted by bias towards a desired conclusion and uses a logically flawed argument that fails to take into account eyewitnesses, their memory and ability to accurately recall details. Just because witnesses describe processes that you do not believe possible, does not evidence those processes did not happen.

For example, issues over air pressure and equilibrium. The witnesses do not explain how those issues were dealt with, describing gas being pumped into a hermetically sealed room, which, on face value, would eventually cause pressure to build, which would then stall the engine, or cause something in the closed system to rupture. There are some simple workarounds that the Nazis could have used, such as a pressure valve, or a hinged cover on a vent that if the pressure got too high, the cover would open. It is wrong to presume that because no witness states how pressure was dealt with, that means it was not dealt with.

Or, how witnesses describe far less wood being needed for the cremation pyres, than would otherwise be expected. Not being able to work out how the pyres were possible, and how corpses would burn, is not evidence to prove there were no pyres. The witness descriptions match the pyres at Dresden and Ohrdruf, whereby corpses were piled on top of rails, over wood. The wood was set alight and the fire spread to the corpses, which, from body fat, caught alight and burned. The pyre at Ohrdruf got so hot, it caused the metal rails to warp and it was smaller than the pyres described at the AR camps.

As for the criteria for the volume of graves and remains, that is again an opinion. In my opinion, an area of 2 hectares, up to 7m deep, is enough space to contain mass graves for hundreds of thousands of corpses. That it contained cremated and larger human remains and GPR traced 5 pits in a row, where eyewitnesses described the main mass graves being located, is corroborating evidence to prove hundreds of thousands buried there. My opinion means no more or less than your opinion. At least my opinion is backed by evidence.

This is correct;

Claim: ~800,000 people were gassed with engine exhaust, buried, exhumed, cremated, and reburied.

Falsification criteria: is there corroborating evidence from eyewitnesses, documents, forensics, archaeological surveys, imagery and circumstances, to prove that there were, or were not mass gassings, burials and cremations?

[HansHill]

And there we have it gentlemen.

Nessie's charade collapses from "it's evidenced!" to "it's speculated!". This is why you aren't really taken seriously.

[Nessie]

And there we have it gentlemen.

Nessie's charade collapses from "it's evidenced!" to "it's speculated!". This is why you aren't really taken seriously.

I made it clear in the OP, that falsification comes from evidence. At no point have I switched to saying that falsification comes from speculation. You claimed, incorrectly that;

"Falsification criteria: inoperability of gassing method, lack of mass grave space for original ~800,000 corpse volume, inoperability of cremation process, lack of remains for ~800,000 cremains & wood ash mixture."

Gassings or the cremation process are not falsified by your belief the method is inoperable. It is falsified by evidence it did not happen, such as camp staff denying that mass gassing took place, or documents proving hundreds of thousands left the camp. Same with the mass grave space and remains. They are falsified by archaeological and geophysical evidence of large areas of undisturbed ground and no cremated remains, evidence of which you do not have.

[Callafangers]

You miss the point, bigtime. Your view that 'the Holocaust happened' requires that there be upwards of 800,000 Jews buried under Treblinka. There cannot simply be 'mass burial pits', since there are other much simpler, more mundane explanations for such pits in the context of the war. The scale is paramount.

Hence, when I ask you to apply the falsification principle to your position, that position is not "there were burials." Your position must be "there are >600,000 Jewish corpses buried underground at Treblinka."

To apply the principle, your position (and reality) becomes "there are not >600,000 Jewish corpses buried underground at Treblinka."

You have to explain how exactly you will demonstrate -- conclusively -- your principle-applied position (the negative) to be true.

Explain.

[Nessie]

You miss the point, bigtime. Your view that 'the Holocaust happened' requires that there be upwards of 800,000 Jews buried under Treblinka. There cannot simply be 'mass burial pits', since there are other much simpler, more mundane explanations for such pits in the context of the war. The scale is paramount.

I have already covered the issue of scale. An area of 2 hectares, which at one point was 7m deep, where buried remains were identified, is easily large enough for hundreds of thousands of corpses to have been buried there. The area seen on the 1944 aerial photo, of disturbed ground, in the section of the camp identified as containing mass graves, is large enough to have buried hundreds of thousands of corpses. That 5 pits in row, were identified in just one part of that area, by GPR, is evidence to corroborate witness claims about mass graves. The scale is also evidenced by the documentary evidence, of mass arrivals, with no corresponding mass departures. I know you disagree and think that evidence is insufficient to prove hundreds of thousands buried there. Disagreement and falsification are different.

Hence, when I ask you to apply the falsification principle to your position, that position is not "there were burials." Your position must be "there are >600,000 Jewish corpses buried underground at Treblinka."

To apply the principle, your position (and reality) becomes "there are not >600,000 Jewish corpses buried underground at Treblinka."

You have to explain how exactly you will demonstrate -- conclusively -- your principle-applied position (the negative) to be true.

Explain.

I would falsify the claim that more than 600,000 Jewish corpses were buried at TII, by interviewing camp staff and prisoners, arranging archaeological and geophysical site surveys and tracing transport records. What you do not get, is my point that the method for falsification is the same as the method for verification. Both involve gathering evidence.

You said "The falsification principle requires hypothetical consideration of what if the claim were false. And only if it could be proven false in this way, does the claim itself hold up as scientific."

If camp staff all denied the presence of gas chambers, none of the prisoners said they were made to work at gas chambers, archaeological and geophysical surveys found no mass graves and transport records had hundreds of thousands leaving the camp, then the claim of mass gassings and burials is falsified.

Sanity Check has also been trying to explain that both falsification and verification are by the same means;

The 'falsifiable' is conceptual past a certain point when considering historical claims that become massively attested. In other cases a band could have been exposed as a prank or the work of others, but The Beatles emerged into the full glare of publicity with all four faces known, being filmed playing as a band, associated with recordings matching what was on TV or played at live concerts, so there were innumerable 'tests' within a very short space of time.

Gather evidence and if there is evidence to expose The Beatles as some sort of hoax, then their existence is falsified. Instead, the evidence is that they existed.

[TlsMS93]

To say there is evidence and then, when questioned, claim that they destroyed the direct evidence, leaving only a handful of survivors, is incredibly weak.

They destroyed the evidence, okay? How? Was the method testable in real-world trials with something similar to human beings like pigs or cattle?

Yes, these cremation tests exist, but not to corroborate or deny the Holocaust. However, the exterminationists refuse to use them to corroborate what witnesses or camp guards have maintained, nor do they offer independent studies that validate the day-to-day process of discarding their history.

[Callafangers]

You miss the point, bigtime. Your view that 'the Holocaust happened' requires that there be upwards of 800,000 Jews buried under Treblinka. There cannot simply be 'mass burial pits', since there are other much simpler, more mundane explanations for such pits in the context of the war. The scale is paramount.

I have already covered the issue of scale. An area of 2 hectares, which at one point was 7m deep, where buried remains were identified, is easily large enough for hundreds of thousands of corpses to have been buried there. The area seen on the 1944 aerial photo, of disturbed ground, in the section of the camp identified as containing mass graves, is large enough to have buried hundreds of thousands of corpses. That 5 pits in row, were identified in just one part of that area, by GPR, is evidence to corroborate witness claims about mass graves. The scale is also evidenced by the documentary evidence, of mass arrivals, with no corresponding mass departures. I know you disagree and think that evidence is insufficient to prove hundreds of thousands buried there. Disagreement and falsification are different.

Hence, when I ask you to apply the falsification principle to your position, that position is not "there were burials." Your position must be "there are >600,000 Jewish corpses buried underground at Treblinka."

To apply the principle, your position (and reality) becomes "there are not >600,000 Jewish corpses buried underground at Treblinka."

You have to explain how exactly you will demonstrate -- conclusively -- your principle-applied position (the negative) to be true.

Explain.

I would falsify the claim that more than 600,000 Jewish corpses were buried at TII, by interviewing camp staff and prisoners, arranging archaeological and geophysical site surveys and tracing transport records. What you do not get, is my point that the method for falsification is the same as the method for verification. Both involve gathering evidence.

You said "The falsification principle requires hypothetical consideration of what if the claim were false. And only if it could be proven false in this way, does the claim itself hold up as scientific."

If camp staff all denied the presence of gas chambers, none of the prisoners said they were made to work at gas chambers, archaeological and geophysical surveys found no mass graves and transport records had hundreds of thousands leaving the camp, then the claim of mass gassings and burials is falsified.

Nessie, you have failed. None of this conclusively shows that >600,000 Jews are not buried underneath Treblinka. Even if all the camp staff, etc., said they saw only football games and celebrations at Treblinka, this still does not conclusively prove there are not 600,000 Jews buried underground there.

You had one job.

Sanity Check has also been trying to explain that both falsification and verification are by the same means;

The 'falsifiable' is conceptual past a certain point when considering historical claims that become massively attested. In other cases a band could have been exposed as a prank or the work of others, but The Beatles emerged into the full glare of publicity with all four faces known, being filmed playing as a band, associated with recordings matching what was on TV or played at live concerts, so there were innumerable 'tests' within a very short space of time.

Gather evidence and if there is evidence to expose The Beatles as some sort of hoax, then their existence is falsified. Instead, the evidence is that they existed.

SanityCheck is completely clueless, here, as are you. You don't need to "expose The Beatles as some sort of hoax". Applying the falsification principle begins with interpreting "The Beatles existed as a band" as actually false. This means you could find a lack of individuals named Paul McCartney, John Lennon, etc. You could find a lack of any shows, records, etc., or anything presented as such. The hoax isn't necessary for Popperian falsification.

It is also important to note the difference between theoretical falsifiability, which merely admits a claim to science, and practical falsification which is required to advance (or eliminate) it. The latter accounts for real-world ability to rigorously falsify (that is, total ability ["comprehensive openness"] to successfully prove false, if false) the claim -- it is what is needed to substantiate the 'Holocaust' as a scientific or legitimate position, and it's precisely where you fail.

[Callafangers]

It's time for another summary-breakdown, since I recognize this concept is difficult for many members here. This is understandable as it is a complex concept involving thinking in a hypothetical (which a large portion of the population struggles with, as demonstrated by the "how would you feel if you didn't eat breakfast this morning?" meme).

Firstly, for the 'Holocaust' to be acceptable as a narrative, all of the following claims/predictions must be true:

• There are greater than 200,000 Jews buried underneath Treblinka
• There are greater than 50,000 Jews buried under Sobibor
• There are greater than 100,000 Jews buried under Belzec

I've dramatically low-balled these figures so as to represent a value low enough that the 'Holocaust' narrative would need major rewriting if such a low value were confirmed. There are of course other examples (e.g. at Chelmno, or in the Eastern territories) however we can work with the examples above, letting it suffice to say that a finding less than the shown value (for any of the camps shown) means the 'Holocaust' faces a challenge as a narrative. Thus, determining these claims/predictions as scientific and legitimate is a meaningful task.

If any of the above three points are unscientific, this detracts from the soundness and legitimacy of the 'Holocaust' narrative overall. Applying the principle to each of the claims/predictions above shows that, indeed, each is unscientific/illegitimate.

Let's take Treblinka as an example:

• We start off by accepting the claim/prediction as false: there are NOT greater than 200,000 Jews buried underneath Treblinka
• We now have to prove this [false] claim as conclusively false
• In attempting to do this, we need to show that not only were there Jewish arrivals and claims to their burials here, but that there are actually not this minimal number of Jews underground there
• Claims that this number of Jews arrived and were buried underground there only suffice if there is no other explanation other than strict truth-telling, for these claims. But there are other explanations (i.e. motives).
• Documentation suggesting >200k burials underground are only sufficient if explicit and reliable with clear chains-of-custody free of potential tampering, fabrication, etc. This condition is not present.
• Therefore, there is no conceivable way to show such a number of Jews is not underground there, without checking underneath the entire camp area (in a comprehensive, transparent, and unbiased way) to confirm a lack of physical remains (or a representative pattern thereof) reflecting a scale of >200,000 corpses.
• Checking thoroughly underground is conceivable in theory, however is not possible in practice.

As explained earlier, the Treblinka narrative of the 'Holocaust' has some theoretical falsifiability, which merely admits a claim/prediction to the field of science, however lacks practical falsification which is required to advance (or eliminate) the claim/prediction. Therefore, the Treblinka narrative of the 'Holocaust' has not been substantiated.

The same logic and approach can apply identically to the other two camps mentioned (Belzec, Sobibor), and to many other claims of the 'Holocaust'.

[Nessie]

....

I would falsify the claim that more than 600,000 Jewish corpses were buried at TII, by interviewing camp staff and prisoners, arranging archaeological and geophysical site surveys and tracing transport records. What you do not get, is my point that the method for falsification is the same as the method for verification. Both involve gathering evidence.

You said "The falsification principle requires hypothetical consideration of what if the claim were false. And only if it could be proven false in this way, does the claim itself hold up as scientific."

If camp staff all denied the presence of gas chambers, none of the prisoners said they were made to work at gas chambers, archaeological and geophysical surveys found no mass graves and transport records had hundreds of thousands leaving the camp, then the claim of mass gassings and burials is falsified.

Nessie, you have failed. None of this conclusively shows that >600,000 Jews are not buried underneath Treblinka. Even if all the camp staff, etc., said they saw only football games and celebrations at Treblinka, this still does not conclusively prove there are not 600,000 Jews buried underground there.

You had one job.

If all the staff and prisoners denied any knowledge of gas chambers and mass graves, archaeological and geophysical surveys found no traces of mass graves and documents recorded hundreds of thousands of people leaving that camp, I would have succeeded in falsifying claims about mass murder at the camp. That volume of evidence would prove 600,000 Jews had never been buried there. For you to suggest otherwise, proves that you do not understand evidence and falsification. It is a physical impossibility for so many to be buried there, without it leaving any evidence. When no evidence is found, a claim has been falsified.

If you really deny that volume of evidence would be sufficient to prove no buried Jews, then what would you do to prove 600,000 had never been buried there?

Sanity Check has also been trying to explain that both falsification and verification are by the same means;

The 'falsifiable' is conceptual past a certain point when considering historical claims that become massively attested. In other cases a band could have been exposed as a prank or the work of others, but The Beatles emerged into the full glare of publicity with all four faces known, being filmed playing as a band, associated with recordings matching what was on TV or played at live concerts, so there were innumerable 'tests' within a very short space of time.

Gather evidence and if there is evidence to expose The Beatles as some sort of hoax, then their existence is falsified. Instead, the evidence is that they existed.

SanityCheck is completely clueless, here, as are you. You don't need to "expose The Beatles as some sort of hoax". Applying the falsification principle begins with interpreting "The Beatles existed as a band" as actually false. This means you could find a lack of individuals named Paul McCartney, John Lennon, etc. You could find a lack of any shows, records, etc., or anything presented as such. The hoax isn't necessary for Popperian falsification.

That is what Sanity Check means. If there is no evidence of the Fab Four or films, TV, recordings, shows or other evidence of their existence, then it has been proved The Beatles did not exist and any claim they did is false.

It is also important to note the difference between theoretical falsifiability, which merely admits a claim to science, and practical falsification which is required to advance (or eliminate) it. The latter accounts for real-world ability to rigorously falsify (that is, total ability ["comprehensive openness"] to successfully prove false, if false) the claim -- it is what is needed to substantiate the 'Holocaust' as a scientific or legitimate position, and it's precisely where you fail.

Everything about the Holocaust can be falsified. You failed to understand how that can be done, because you do not understand evidencing. Hence, you are claiming that a total lack of any evidence, from witnesses, archaeology, geophysics and documents, of 600,000 Jews buried at TII, would not be proof that they are not buried there!

[Nessie]

...

Let's take Treblinka as an example:

• We start off by accepting the claim/prediction as false: there are NOT greater than 200,000 Jews buried underneath Treblinka
• We now have to prove this [false] claim as conclusively false

Your stated aim is to show that it is impossible to prove that there are not greater than 200,000 Jews buried at TII, which means, according to the principle you are using, the claim that there are more than 200,000 Jews buried there is unsubstantiated.

It is a really odd way of investigation and we need to acknowledge why you are doing it. Obviously it is because you want more excuses to dismiss the evidence of more than 200,000 Jews buried there and to excuse your inability to evidence there are far less than 200,000 buried there.

[*] In attempting to do this, we need to show that not only were there Jewish arrivals and claims to their burials here, but that there are actually not this minimal number of Jews underground there
[*] Claims that this number of Jews arrived and were buried underground there only suffice if there is no other explanation other than strict truth-telling, for these claims. But there are other explanations (i.e. motives).
[*] Documentation suggesting >200k burials underground are only sufficient if explicit and reliable with clear chains-of-custody free of potential tampering, fabrication, etc. This condition is not present.
[*] Therefore, there is no conceivable way to show such a number of Jews is not underground there, without checking underneath the entire camp area (in a comprehensive, transparent, and unbiased way) to confirm a lack of physical remains (or a representative pattern thereof) reflecting a scale of >200,000 corpses.
[*] Checking thoroughly underground is conceivable in theory, however is not possible in practice.[/list]

You have theorised a bizarre investigation, that no one genuinely investigating TII would conduct, to make your desired claim about falsifiability work. You are avoiding that a genuine investigation, would be perfectly capable of falsifying any claim about mass burials at TII, from there being none at all, to there were c800,000 buried there, by proving how many are buried at the camp. That is why, above, you made the unjustifiable claim that if all the staff and prisoners denied mass graves existed and surveys found no traces of mass graves and documents recorded mass transports back out of the camp, you would not have proved there were no mass graves!

You have produced a list that distorts the investigations of TII, to pretend that the evidence of c800,000 buried there, falsifies the claim that there are not more than 200,000 buried there.

As explained earlier, the Treblinka narrative of the 'Holocaust' has some theoretical falsifiability, which merely admits a claim/prediction to the field of science, however lacks practical falsification which is required to advance (or eliminate) the claim/prediction. Therefore, the Treblinka narrative of the 'Holocaust' has not been substantiated.

The same logic and approach can apply identically to the other two camps mentioned (Belzec, Sobibor), and to many other claims of the 'Holocaust'.

Only in your mind, is it logical, to suggest a bizarre failure to prove that it is not possible to prove that more than 200,000 Jews are not buried at TII, undermines the claim that more than 200,000 Jews are buried there. You are trying to excuse your inability to evidence that TII never had huge mass graves containing hundreds of thousands of corpses.

An archaeological and GPR survey, that finds little to no buried remains, would, on its own, falsify that more than 200,000 were buried at TII. It is entirely practical to conduct such a survey and so falsify the TII narrative. You cannot do it and so you need excuses for that

In the thread "Goalposts" you said;

That "the Germans killed the 17,000 corpses buried under the Katyn forest" is falsifiable is evident in the fact that we have, indeed, produced evidence to show it as false. This evidence was always conceivably possible, even before Soviet admissions in the 90s, which means it has always been a scientific/legitimate claim or prediction. However one could dispute whether it was falsifiable in practice decades prior, due to Soviet motives and control of information. It took a Soviet admission to show it false, after all.

The same sort of evidence, such as admissions, applies to TII. It is possible to falsify any claim, using evidence, about TII. Therefore it is also a "scientific/legitimate" claim.

[Callafangers]

Nessie, you claim Treblinka's >700,000 gassed/buried/cremated is falsifiable via "witnesses/docs/GPR." This is wrong -- falsification requires severe tests of predictions, and the tests for Treblinka have been suppressed/limited and have also pointed toward illegitimacy of 'Holocaust' claims:

• Excavations/digs repeatedly show a lack of corpses
• This means the witnesses have gone uncorroborated
• A lack of corroboration means the Treblinka 'Holocaust' is no longer exposed to a risk of refutation
• A lack of risk of refutation means the theory is unfalsifiable and, therefore, unscientific/illegitimate

A reminder, from an earlier thread (viewtopic.php?t=578):

• The 1944 aerial photo shows nothing of corpses or mass grave operations
• The eyewitness maps are just as compatible with claims by embittered Jews and other conflicted interests and are disproportionate (insufficient) as evidence for the allegations
• Lukaszkiewicz's finds do not mention corpses anywhere other than underneath a single crater which blew up across a surface area of two hectares. The language used is unmistakable as such.
• The 2011 survey did not report corpses but 'disturbances' for which it is already well-documented by Lukaszkiewicz and his team that these were "innumerable" and not filled with corpses (instead had rags, kitchenware, clothing, coins, furniture, and various junk property)

Revisionism predicts "no massive traces", which is confirmed repeatedly. Your narrative dodges via restrictions, making it unfalsifiable and demonstrating its illegitimacy.

[Nessie]

Nessie, you claim Treblinka's >700,000 gassed/buried/cremated is falsifiable via "witnesses/docs/GPR." This is wrong --

In the Goalposts thread (I also added to my last post something from that thread) you said;

Don't mistake whether something "has been falsified" with Popper's principle of falsification. The latter is more an exercise leading to corroboration than it is meant to determine the status ('falsified' vs. not) of any particular claim.

You need to explain how, in principle, evidence from witnesses, documents and GPR cannot falsify the claims about the camp.

...falsification requires severe tests of predictions, and the tests for Treblinka have been suppressed/limited and have also pointed toward illegitimacy of 'Holocaust' claims:

• Excavations/digs repeatedly show a lack of corpses
• This means the witnesses have gone uncorroborated
• A lack of corroboration means the Treblinka 'Holocaust' is no longer exposed to a risk of refutation
• A lack of risk of refutation means the theory is unfalsifiable and, therefore, unscientific/illegitimate

We have now moved from in principle, to in practice. I disagree with your list of claims. An area of 2 hectares, up to 7m deep, is enough space for huge mass graves containing hundreds of thousands of corpses. The 1944 aerial photo shows that 2 hectare area to be disturbed ground and elsewhere in the camp, rectangular outlines can be seen, that fit with mass graves being dug. A geophysical survey of just a part of those areas (due to the limitations of the memorial) has found multiple pits, including 5 pits in a row, which fits with witness descriptions of the main mass grave area. That is in both principle and practice, corroboration. The geophysics fits the witness descriptions and the maps of the camp they produced.

A reminder, from an earlier thread (viewtopic.php?t=578):

• The 1944 aerial photo shows nothing of corpses or mass grave operations
• The eyewitness maps are just as compatible with claims by embittered Jews and other conflicted interests and are disproportionate (insufficient) as evidence for the allegations
• Lukaszkiewicz's finds do not mention corpses anywhere other than underneath a single crater which blew up across a surface area of two hectares. The language used is unmistakable as such.
• The 2011 survey did not report corpses but 'disturbances' for which it is already well-documented by Lukaszkiewicz and his team that these were "innumerable" and not filled with corpses (instead had rags, kitchenware, clothing, coins, furniture, and various junk property)

Revisionism predicts "no massive traces", which is confirmed repeatedly. Your narrative dodges via restrictions, making it unfalsifiable and demonstrating its illegitimacy.

Again, I disagree with your list. As I said above, the 1944 aerial photo is consistent with mass graves. It is also consistent with the cover-up described by witnesses. The Nazis also produced maps, which fit the Jewish ones and both match geophysical finds. Your interpretation of Lukaszkiewicz's description of the 2 hectare area is a misrepresentation, either die to misunderstanding, or deliberately, to minimise what was found. The 2011 survey found pits where witnesses said mass graves had been dug.

No restrictions were placed on the 1945 camp survey, other than resources were limited. The only restriction on the 2011 survey, which also applies to excavations at the other AR camps, was to limit disturbing buried remains as much as possible. Hence, in 2011, excavations only took place in parts of the camp where there was no evidence graves had been dug and at the other camps, excavating stopped when remains were found.

You are wrong to say that the mass grave claims are unfalsifiable, as the site surveys conducted in both 1945 and 2011, would have falsified the mass grave claims, if there had been no mass graves. They way those surveys were conducted meant that if there was a 2 hectare area of the camp, that had never contained mass graves, the surveys would have confirmed that, by finding undisturbed ground.

[Nessie]

This is worthy of more discussion and explanation by you;

Lukaszkiewicz's finds do not mention corpses anywhere other than underneath a single crater which blew up across a surface area of two hectares. The language used is unmistakable as such.

In that case, how is falsification of the mass graves impossible due to restrictions? You have just shown how Lukaszkiewicz falsified the mass grave claim. He did so by not finding any sign of corpses, other than where an explosion created a single crater, blowing remains across an area of 2 hectares. He stated he found no mass graves. Therefore, according to you, he falsified the mass grave claims.