Here is my actual argument.

Discuss the alleged Nazi genocide or other wartime atrocities without fear of censorship. No bullying of fellow posters is allowed at RODOH. If you can't be civil, please address the argument and not the participants. Do not use disparaging alterations of the user-names of other RODOH posters or their family members. Failure to heed warnings from Moderators will result in a 24 hour ban (or longer if necessary).

Moderators: Budu Svanidze, Joe Future

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 21996
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Here is my actual argument.

Post by Nessie » Wed Apr 05, 2017 10:37 am

The evidence which provides the proof that the Nazi policy towards the Jewish people and others such as the Roma gypsies included mass murder comes from;

1- the evidence to prove the number killed at TII primarily comes from documentation such as Hofle's telegram, Korherr, the Gazenmuller Letter, the Stroop Report and ghetto records. It is supported by the less numerically reliable witness testimony of those at the camp and Zabecki, the Treblinka station master. It is then supported again by the lack of Jewish people returning back to their homes in the towns and cities which were cleared by the Nazis and their Jewish population sent to TII. That evidence and proof is then verified by the lack of any evidence at all for anything other than limited arrivals at other camps of Jews from TII who were selected to work.

2 - the evidence as to why they were killed comes from Nazi anti-Semitic propaganda, the Nuremberg Laws, the Lebensraum policy and Nazi plans to liquidate Jews by Special Treatment and other evidence which shows mass killing was an accepted part of the ethnic cleansing Nazi occupied Europe of Jewish people. Documents such as Wannsee and Goebbels diary prove the Nazis wanted Jews to work and those who were not needed or could not work were expected to die. Killing those who could not provide for the State was also part of the T4 action.

3 - the cause of death, by gassing at various camps is primarily from witnesses who say that is how it was done. It is supported by, for example the lack of bullets at TII and the skulls which were recovered had no bullet wounds. It is further supported by corroboration from other camps that was the method used.

I will continue to add to this as a means to deal with the continual misrepresentation of my actual arguments.
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 21996
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Here is my actual argument.

Post by Nessie » Wed Apr 05, 2017 11:11 am

4 - The presence of cremated remains and no mass graves full of corpses at the AR camps corroborates the witness claims that the bodies were exhumed from mass graves, cremated and their cremains were buried there. The cremated remains in themselves and on their own do not show what the cause of death was, who those people were and where they came from.

5- The work by Kola at Belzec which has established rough dimensions of areas of disturbed ground of c21,000m3 gives an approximate idea of the size and location of the original mass graves which were dug to bury corpses, before cremation of remains became the means of disposal.

6 - The cremation of remains is part of the evidence that the Nazis tried to cover up their crime by making body counts, the precise cause of death and identification of individual victims impossible.
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

Turnagain
Posts: 3131
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 10:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Here is my actual argument.

Post by Turnagain » Wed Apr 05, 2017 11:50 am

Nessie said.
"4 - The presence of cremated remains and no mass graves full of corpses at the AR camps corroborates the witness claims that the bodies were exhumed from mass graves, cremated and their cremains were buried there."

Uh-huh, what Nessie leaves out is that there should be at least 2,000 TONS of cremains at the Treblinka site. Instead, he comes with a couple of little bone chips and says, "See, here's the cremains." He also leaves out the fact that if the victims were initially buried, the giant mass graves are still there. Of course those giant mass graves can't be found because...er...um...welllll...they're not filled up with bodies anymore...or...er...Kola drew a pencil sketch of some dirt...oh... So it goes with Nessie.

Aryan Scholar
Posts: 4649
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2016 3:56 pm
Contact:

Re: Here is my actual argument.

Post by Aryan Scholar » Wed Apr 05, 2017 12:10 pm

Aryan Scholar wrote:
Nessie wrote:
permanent_denial wrote:......

First, you're making the logical fallacy of generalization that if bodies were indeed cremated and buried at the site, no matter in what number, by what means, or in what geo-location they are interred, that all claims made by the allegers are valid, including the total number of alleged deceased, and including the impetus for death, in this case execution by gas chambers as part of a conspiracy to eliminate European Jews by mass execution (something the allegers would be unaware of even if it were occurring on a micro scale, which itself is far from evidenced conclusively, by the way). ......
Really? Lets deal with that "first" before anything else. Please show me where I have claimed confirmation that cremated remains are at the camps means that all alleged claims about numbers killed, the reasons for the killing and the cause of death are valid. Or, please admit you are wrong and in fact I have made no such generalisation.
Here:
Nessie wrote:
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Nessie wrote:It is a tactic to stall the debate by setting the bar so high it is impossible to achieve and then saying that your opponent cannot evidence their belief. There are some who would argue without names there is no proof, the name a Jew who was gassed gambit.
But I did not ask all the names of the alleged victims of Treblinka mass murder, did I? I ask you to evidence the location of its remains, even if the list was made with fictional names (e.g. John Doe). You failed to provide the location of the remains of the alleged victims of Treblinka mass murder while I was able to provide the location of the remains of the alleged Bombing of Dresden victims.
I was just referring to the tactic. I have told you where the remains at TII are, they are primarily spread about the ground where the monuments are and where there are not trees. The Staffs Uni gpr survey when they were looking of the gas chamber identified areas where the ground is heavily disturbed and at one point there appears to be a ramp and straight edges buried under the ground, details here;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16657363
Aryan Scholar wrote:
It is what you and many denier/revisionists do when confronted with what is left of the AR camps, Babi Yar etc. You want remains and lab tests, despite the evidence from archaeologists, film and photographs showing remains.
That is ask because all the evidence you provided does not show the location of any mass graves with human remains.
What is about photos of bones taken in 1944-5, film of Staff Uni archaeologists at TII picking up bits of burnt bone, Soviet and Polish archaeological reports of finding human remains and that they were found at the site of TII where the Nazis had razed that camp to the ground (unlike TI) is not sufficient evidence of it being a mass burial site?

You need to provide me with a proper explanation of how that is insufficient evidence, especially when you say it is sufficient to show a memorial at Dresden to evidence bodies are buried there.
Aryan Scholar wrote:
The real argument is how many bodies are there, rather than are there any there? That is where denier/revisionists had the Nazis assist them by cremating the remains and try to pretend nothing suspect happened at the camps. The Nazis did go on to admit what took place, denier/revisionists refuse to.
If the Germans eliminated all bodies to avoid other know how many they killed, how do you know how many bodies were killed? Why would the Germans commit the perfect crime to then confess it later? Every time you state there are not physical evidence because the Germans eliminated all, you contradict your claim they killed 850,000 people. If the Germans had eliminated all the evidence of Treblinka mass murder, you would not know anything about Treblinka mass murder.
We know how many were killed because of witnesses and documents. They did not commit the perfect crime, despite their efforts to cover up what they had done, there were witnesses, documents and physical evidence left behind. I do not say they managed to eliminate all of the evidence at TII.
Aryan Scholar wrote:
So why do you spend so much time trying to prove it never existed and so little time proving an alternative?

I disagree that numerous archaeological examinations which found a mix of earth and remains in the form of ash and bits of bone at specific parts of specific camps is a failure to evidence cremated bodies and their location. The archaeologists have pinpointed areas where human remains are more densely packed than others. Then cremains are found on the surface at TII. They are not found at TI. They are found at Sobibor, not Dora-Mittelbau. Belzec not Bergen-Belsen.

You have agreed before there are likely dead at those camps, your argument is about how many. You should then provide evidence it is not many by evidencing mass survival. I am asking to prove the only alternative to mass deaths which is mass survival. So show mass transits back out of those camps and where the prisoners were resettled.
I do not spend any time proving the mass graves does not exist. It is you which failed to prove it exist.
Again, show me how all that evidence is a failure to prove there were no mass graves at TII?

You also, yet again, miss out how you could put this whole issue to bed once and for all. Evidence mass transits back out of TII. Why is that?
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2654&p=83876&hilit=Germans#p83880
Nessie wrote:
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Nessie wrote:I was just referring to the tactic. I have told you where the remains at TII are, they are primarily spread about the ground where the monuments are and where there are not trees. The Staffs Uni gpr survey when they were looking of the gas chamber identified areas where the ground is heavily disturbed and at one point there appears to be a ramp and straight edges buried under the ground, details here;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16657363

What is about photos of bones taken in 1944-5, film of Staff Uni archaeologists at TII picking up bits of burnt bone, Soviet and Polish archaeological reports of finding human remains and that they were found at the site of TII where the Nazis had razed that camp to the ground (unlike TI) is not sufficient evidence of it being a mass burial site?


Human remains spread over the ground are not evidence of mass graves.
It was more than just human remains found on the surface. The earlier investigations, aided by looters blowing up the ground show that there are remains under the ground as well. I am also not evidencing mass graves, because the witnesses said they were dug up and the bodies cremated. I am evidencing that the archaeologists found heavily disturbed ground mixed in with burnt remains, which is consisted with what the witnesses say happened.

You need to fully explain what you expect to see to believe the site was where mass graves were, not are now.
Aryan Scholar wrote: Moreover, none of the human remains had been confirmed to be from the allegedly 850,000 people killed by the Germans. It can be the human remains of people which died from natural causes while living the Treblinka concentration camp.
There is conformation from documents and eye witnesses. Documents confirm mass arrivals, no mass departures and the witnesses tell us what happened. For you to claim there is no conformation means you have to have evidence the documents are wrong and ALL of the witnesses are lying. OR you can show mass transits back out of the camp and people arriving elsewhere. Please do one or the other or accept you cannot and you are wrong.
Aryan Scholar wrote:
You need to provide me with a proper explanation of how that is insufficient evidence, especially when you say it is sufficient to show a memorial at Dresden to evidence bodies are buried there.
Because there was never any doubt about where the Bombing of Dresden victims were buried. The grounds of the Heidefriedhof cemetery was not severely disturbed after the burial of the Bombing of Dresden victims. Meanwhile, you claim there are mass graves on grounds which had been severely disturbed many times until the most recent archaeological research. This why specific evidence is required to confirm the location of mass graves.
There is no doubt as to where those who died at TII are buried. You have just admitted "It can be the human remains of people which died from natural causes while living the Treblinka concentration camp." The only issue is how many?

Why do you keep asking for mass graves when what we are looking for are brunt remains spread amongst the earth? What exactly do you expect to be shown?
Aryan Scholar wrote:
We know how many were killed because of witnesses and documents. They did not commit the perfect crime, despite their efforts to cover up what they had done, there were witnesses, documents and physical evidence left behind. I do not say they managed to eliminate all of the evidence at TII.
That is why the 850,000 figure is a fictional estimation. It is based on testimonies instead of body count.
It is based on factual documentation and multiple testimonies from various sources.
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2654&p=83908&hilit=confirm#p83908
Nessie wrote:
Aryan Scholar wrote:
It is based on factual documentation and multiple testimonies from various sources.
It is still not based on a genuine statistical estimation. It is just a fictional figure.
It is based on statistics from Hofle and the number of people transported from ghettos to the camp, collated here;

https://web.archive.org/web/20130522164 ... today.html

Aryan Scholar wrote:
Utter crap. I can prove I do not own a Rolls-Royce or have a degree in Philosophy from Oxford Uni. A doctor could prove I do not have TB. I can also prove there are no nor have there ever been mass graves in my back garden with GPR.
Not if the mass graves never existed.
If there had been no mass graves then the various archaeological excavations would have found bugger all. Instead they found areas of heavily disturbed ground with a mix of sand, soil and remains.
Aryan Scholar wrote:
There would be some records remaining, but mostly, there would be millions of witnesses. You expect the world to believe that millions of survivors have all kept quiet for 75 years and hidden themselves away somewhere.
Where did I even claim anything like that?
You didn't, you avoid making that claim, which is odd because it is the only alternative. If the Jews had really just been transported via TII to other camps, those camps would have an extra 850,000 arrivals and the town of Tomaszow – Mazowiecki (transport of 15,000 Jews on Thursday 22/10/1942) would have had thousands of Jews returning home after liberation instead of a couple of hundred who managed to survive the war.
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2654&p=83939&hilit=confirm#p83939

Aryan Scholar
Posts: 4649
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2016 3:56 pm
Contact:

Re: Here is my actual argument.

Post by Aryan Scholar » Wed Apr 05, 2017 12:11 pm

Aryan Scholar wrote:
Nessie wrote:There is no where in that wall of text which shows I claim the presence of cremated remains at TII proves the number killed, why they were killed and how they were killed. What I do claim is

1- the evidence to prove the number killed primarily comes from documentation such as Hofle's telegram, Korherr, the Gazenmuller Letter, the Stroop Report and ghetto records. It is supported by the less numerically reliable witness testimony of those at the camp and Zabecki, the Treblinka station master. It is then supported again by the lack of Jewish people returning back to their homes in the towns and cities which were cleared by the Nazis and their Jewish population sent to TII. That evidence and proof is then verified by the lack of any evidence at all for anything other than limited arrivals at other camps of Jews from TII who were selected to work.

2 - the evidence as to why they were killed comes from Nazi anti-Semitic propaganda, the Lebensraum policy and Nazi plans to liquidate Jews by Special Treatment and other evidence which shows mass killing was an accepted part of the ethnic cleansing Nazi occupied Europe of Jewish people.

3 - the cause of death, by gassing is primarily from witnesses who say that is how it was done. It is supported by the lack of bullets at the site and the skulls which were recovered had no bullet wounds. It is further supported by corroboration from other camps that was the method used.

Stop misrepresenting my arguments.
permanent_denial wrote:First, you're making the logical fallacy of generalization that if bodies were indeed cremated and buried at the site, no matter in what number, by what means, or in what geo-location they are interred, that all claims made by the allegers are valid, including the total number of alleged deceased, and including the impetus for death, in this case execution by gas chambers as part of a conspiracy to eliminate European Jews by mass execution (something the allegers would be unaware of even if it were occurring on a micro scale, which itself is far from evidenced conclusively, by the way).

Aryan Scholar
Posts: 4649
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2016 3:56 pm
Contact:

Re: Here is my actual argument.

Post by Aryan Scholar » Wed Apr 05, 2017 12:13 pm

Aryan Scholar wrote:
Nessie wrote:
permanent_denial wrote:......

First, you're making the logical fallacy of generalization that if bodies were indeed cremated and buried at the site, no matter in what number, by what means, or in what geo-location they are interred, that all claims made by the allegers are valid, including the total number of alleged deceased, and including the impetus for death, in this case execution by gas chambers as part of a conspiracy to eliminate European Jews by mass execution (something the allegers would be unaware of even if it were occurring on a micro scale, which itself is far from evidenced conclusively, by the way). ......
Really? Lets deal with that "first" before anything else. Please show me where I have claimed confirmation that cremated remains are at the camps means that all alleged claims about numbers killed, the reasons for the killing and the cause of death are valid. Or, please admit you are wrong and in fact I have made no such generalisation.
Here:
Nessie wrote:That is how I know Kola found c21,000m3 graves with disturbed ground containing a mix of cremains, ash (charcoal) and earth. Hence, with a 70kg body volume of 0.0711m3, you could bury 295,300 people in the grave pits. That is below the death toll for the camp, but, there is other disturbed ground (shown in blue) which joins on to the parts in red. That could be where the Nazis had dug the original graves, exhumed bodies and filled back in with earth without any cremains. So there is more potential grave space. May be now you will understand what I mean by not being able to see the actual original graves as dug in the first place to bury the bodies.

I hope you see that what Kola did was perfectly acceptable and that I have not been lying. I hope you also understand that any critique you have is as an amateur with a heavy bias. So it carries no authority.
Nessie wrote:
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Nessie wrote:With regards to the other examples you have posted, they are also about ancient sites where the only information is that which can be garnered by archaeology. That is not the case at the AR camps. So my point that all the archaeologists and investigators at the AR camps are doing is checking to see if the witnesses are correct or not applies to those guidelines as well. Their list of questions is;

Is there bits of bone and evidence of cremations mixed into the ground?

Is there a building matching the description and in the location given for a gas chamber?
What artefacts are there and what do they show about those who were at the camp site?

No where is there any REQUIREMENT to send what was found away to a lab to be identified.
Your point is irrelevant since this is not the role of forensic archeologists.

The role of forensic archeologists is to collect samples and use a scientific/forensic method of identification to identify what was found as I had show by several examples and guidelines, independent of any witness testimony. None of the examples and guidelines I presented instruct the forensic archeologists to rely on witness testimony. Most of the examples and guidelines I presented requires laboratory analysis of the material found instead to use witness testimony to confirm what was found.
Way to miss the point. Was that deliberate or are you just plain stupid?

The role of the investigations at the AR camps was to check to see if there was any physical evidence so as to determine if the witnesses were telling the truth or not.
Nessie wrote:
Aryan Scholar wrote:......

Not misrepresentation at all, it is a very fair representation of your argument.

You had been arguing your Holocaust archaeologists did not have to send any evidence for laboratory analysis because there is not a "REQUIREMENT TO SEND SAMPLES FOR LAB TESTING" in the source you provided. Following this argument then any forensic archaeologists can just turn up in a court of law and say he did not have to send any bullets for laboratory analysis because there is not a "REQUIREMENT TO SEND SAMPLES FOR LAB TESTING" in his guidelines. He can just claim he is trained to identify bullets by mere visual observation and the witness accounts are sufficient to determine the bullets were fired from a specific gun.
That is how court works. An expert witness identifies the bullets and gun to the court, explaining how he is qualified as a forensic archaeologist and he found them during excavations and witnesses who saw the shooting speak to its use to shoot people dead.

Visual identification is not "mere", it is empirical evidence and people who have studied bones can identify such to an extent acceptable to courts and other academics. ONLY denialists demand lab testing.
Nessie wrote:
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Nessie wrote:You are trying to equate all forensic archaeological work as if it is the same, from a limb bone found in a cave which is from 2000BC, to a still decomposing body from a murder enquiry which may be going to a trial, to a mass grave of whole skeletons to the ash and cremains at the AR camps.

It is important to understand if recovery, storage and lab testing is REQUIRED or not. For the AR camps it is not. Lab testing is just incidental and it is a way of further confirming what we already know. Recovery and storage is not necessary as the sites have been designated burial grounds and the remains will stay there.
Show an independent source which explain why laboratory tests are not required for the finds collected in the AR concentration camps sites.
I already have, three of them. If you read and understood them you would know that the WHOLE study of the AR camps, from its history to the rusted plates recovered, provides the forensic archaeologist with the means to identifying who is buried there, what happened to them and who was responsible. That eye witnesses say there was mass murder and cremations at the site by Nazis of Jews is corroborated by finding the personal property of Jews and Nazis buried next to an area of ash and burnt bits of bone.

With that amount of evidence, lab testing is not needed to establish anything not already known from the existing evidence.
Denialists just demand testing as a tactic to claim not enough has been done. But it has.
Nessie wrote:
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Nessie wrote:No there are not. For example, there are no references here

http://www.sfu.museum/forensics/eng/pg_ ... chaeology/
http://archlab.uindy.edu/documents/ForensicArcheo.pdf
http://www.archaeologists.net/sites/def ... sics_2.pdf

which are the guidelines specific to forensic archaeology.
Already show where are the references for laboratory tests in the above sources......
What you have highlighted is one reference to a laboratory. Well done. It actually refers to the forms they use for data recording.

The rest you think refers to lab testing. The first is describing work undertaken during a post mortem in a morgue. There have been no bodies recovered at AR camps to send for a PM. Then there is a description of different types of evidence that may be recovered at a scene. Do you think they ALL get send for lab testing? The next is processing spoil and it clearly references doing so at the scene and no reference to a lab test required. Supplementary analysis is not required analysis. It is in addition to if needed. Supporting evidence includes eye witness testimony, documents and any thing else relevant. It does not require lab testing. The last is about samples sent for analysis which you clearly think means samples HAVE TO BE sent for analysis. They do not.

So none of the sources specifically reference LABORATORY TESTING. There are some possibles when it may be utilised. Lab testing is NOT REQUIRED. So denialist demands for lab testing everything are not backed by any guideline.
Nessie wrote:
Aryan Scholar wrote:......
Here your "standard for bore samples" source giving an example of what is required to be done with core samples:

Image

If "FORENSIC archaeological guidelines do NOT REQUIRE lab testing", then why the above source did the laboratory tests?
What you have highlighted does not require lab testing. The paragraph tells you why the used lab testing and answer questions about the site depositional history and human adaptations. There are no witnesses to what happened. At the AR camps there are lost of witnesses who all say the same thing about what happened at the sites and that explains the mix of ash, cremains, other body parts and artefacts.
Nessie wrote:
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Nessie wrote:
Wrong, the various Polish Reports in 1945 have show large amounts of human remains were found at the camps.
Yet you cannot give me the weight of how much was found and confirmed to be from the allegedly victims.
Related artefacts along with witness and transport records evidence who was taken to the camp.
Aryan Scholar wrote:Moreover, it was stated in one of the reports no mass grave was found.
Why did it say that?
Aryan Scholar wrote:You can repeat you little lies as much you want, but anyone can question and see you have no answer.
I have answered everything and shown how the AR examinations meet independent standards. Denialist claims they are flawed are ignorant, biased assertions not back by evidence.
Nessie wrote:
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Nessie wrote:Answer please, why do ALL bones have to be displayed like that before work is considered acceptable.

You have not shown how any of the AR camp investigations failed to follow the above, much of which is not applicable, such as DNA. How can DNA establish the identity of someone who was killed in 1942 and there are no longer any survivors alive?

Your block copy and past with no specific comment relating back to AR camp investigations is you trying to make it look like you have a point to make.
Because the image shows identified bones and have a scale which allows to determine the dimensions of the objects displayed.
Please produce academic evidence that is how ALL or even ANY human remains from burial grounds are to be displayed.
Aryan Scholar wrote:DNA test can show racial origin and if its human.
The forensic archaeological links show means of establishing that without using DNA. Why does DNA HAVE to be used, when artefacts and witnesses identify that the remains are Jewish?
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Nessie wrote:DNA is pointless because we have no samples to get an identification of an individual from.
You should have. Where are the laboratory results?
How do we get a DNA sample from someone who lived in the Warsaw ghetto to try and make a comparison with a bit of bone recovered from TII?
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Nessie wrote:What is not scientific and forensic about this quote?

"Grave pit No. 1: Located in north-western part of the camp. Dimensions of the grave was determined as 40 m x 12 m and over 4.80 m deep, filled with bodies in wax-fat transformation, and a mixture of burnt human bones and charcoal. Beneath this deep strata lay a several-centimetres-thick layer of foul-smelling water beneath which were found unburnt corpses compressed by the weight of soil to a layer 20 cm thick. The drill core brought to the surface putrid pieces of human remains, including pieces of skull with skin and tufts of hair attached, and unidentifiable lumps of greyish, fatty, human tissue. The bottom of the grave was lined with a layer of evil smelling black (burnt) human fat, resembling black soap. As no evidence of fabric was brought to the surface, it may be assumed that the corpses are naked. The conclusion was drawn that the preservation of the corpses was due to the fact that they lay virtually hermetically sealed between the layer of the water above and the layer of solidified fat below, underneath which the natural, dry and compressed sand through which no air could penetrate, resulted in their partial mummification. Area: 1,500 sq m."

Making assertions without evidence is just opinion.
That is exactly what was made in the quotes, "assertions without evidence":

"The drill core brought to the surface putrid pieces of human remains, including pieces of skull with skin and tufts of hair attached, and unidentifiable lumps of greyish, fatty, human tissue. The bottom of the grave was lined with a layer of evil smelling black (burnt) human fat, resembling black soap. As no evidence of fabric was brought to the surface, it may be assumed that the corpses are naked."

No proof the piece of bones and decomposing tissues are from human bodies, just an assertion without further scientific/forensic evidence.
How do you know that no microchemical analysis of samples was not taken? How do know there was no study to determine how fatty deposits were found? Since when has an archaeologist not been able to identify pieces of a skull?

Aryan Scholar
Posts: 4649
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2016 3:56 pm
Contact:

Re: Here is my actual argument.

Post by Aryan Scholar » Wed Apr 05, 2017 12:16 pm

Nessie wrote:The evidence which provides the proof that the Nazi policy towards the Jewish people and others such as the Roma gypsies included mass murder comes from;

1- the evidence to prove the number killed at TII primarily comes from documentation such as Hofle's telegram, Korherr, the Gazenmuller Letter, the Stroop Report and ghetto records. It is supported by the less numerically reliable witness testimony of those at the camp and Zabecki, the Treblinka station master. It is then supported again by the lack of Jewish people returning back to their homes in the towns and cities which were cleared by the Nazis and their Jewish population sent to TII. That evidence and proof is then verified by the lack of any evidence at all for anything other than limited arrivals at other camps of Jews from TII who were selected to work.

2 - the evidence as to why they were killed comes from Nazi anti-Semitic propaganda, the Nuremberg Laws, the Lebensraum policy and Nazi plans to liquidate Jews by Special Treatment and other evidence which shows mass killing was an accepted part of the ethnic cleansing Nazi occupied Europe of Jewish people. Documents such as Wannsee and Goebbels diary prove the Nazis wanted Jews to work and those who were not needed or could not work were expected to die. Killing those who could not provide for the State was also part of the T4 action.

3 - the cause of death, by gassing at various camps is primarily from witnesses who say that is how it was done. It is supported by, for example the lack of bullets at TII and the skulls which were recovered had no bullet wounds. It is further supported by corroboration from other camps that was the method used.

I will continue to add to this as a means to deal with the continual misrepresentation of my actual arguments.
Nessie wrote:4 - The presence of cremated remains and no mass graves full of corpses at the AR camps corroborates the witness claims that the bodies were exhumed from mass graves, cremated and their cremains were buried there. The cremated remains in themselves and on their own do not show what the cause of death was, who those people were and where they came from.

5- The work by Kola at Belzec which has established rough dimensions of areas of disturbed ground of c21,000m3 gives an approximate idea of the size and location of the original mass graves which were dug to bury corpses, before cremation of remains became the means of disposal.

6 - The cremation of remains is part of the evidence that the Nazis tried to cover up their crime by making body counts, the precise cause of death and identification of individual victims impossible.
permanent_denial wrote:First, you're making the logical fallacy of generalization that if bodies were indeed cremated and buried at the site, no matter in what number, by what means, or in what geo-location they are interred, that all claims made by the allegers are valid, including the total number of alleged deceased, and including the impetus for death, in this case execution by gas chambers as part of a conspiracy to eliminate European Jews by mass execution (something the allegers would be unaware of even if it were occurring on a micro scale, which itself is far from evidenced conclusively, by the way).

rollo the ganger
Posts: 5110
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 11:34 pm
Contact:

Re: Here is my actual argument.

Post by rollo the ganger » Wed Apr 05, 2017 1:45 pm

Aryan Scholar, please... your "walls of text" in this thread are not appreciated. Nessie has, for once, posted something tangible to argue about. It's progress so don't ruin it. Thank you!

permanent_denial
Posts: 1690
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2017 3:04 am
Contact:

Re: Here is my actual argument.

Post by permanent_denial » Wed Apr 05, 2017 2:01 pm

Nessie wrote: 3 - the cause of death, by gassing at various camps is primarily from witnesses who say that is how it was done. It is supported by, for example the lack of bullets at TII and the skulls which were recovered had no bullet wounds. It is further supported by corroboration from other camps that was the method used.
Nessie:

Would it be correct to attribute cause of death to MASS HOMICIDAL GASSING in any and all cases for which the corpse does NOT exhibit either blunt force trauma, bullet wound, or other evidence of devastation to the SKULL?

YES or NO
The a Wizarding World of Exterminationism...
------------------------
Cremated remains of HOW MANY CORPSES (alternatively give volume or mass of cremated remains of individually identified analysis not given) has been unearthed from the three stated locations (AR camps) and definitively identified by scientific forensic analysis to be of human origin?
Nessie: NONE
------------------------
creative1: ALL conspiracies are bullshit.

Aryan Scholar
Posts: 4649
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2016 3:56 pm
Contact:

Re: Here is my actual argument.

Post by Aryan Scholar » Wed Apr 05, 2017 2:13 pm

rollo the ganger wrote:Aryan Scholar, please... your "walls of text" in this thread are not appreciated. Nessie has, for once, posted something tangible to argue about. It's progress so don't ruin it. Thank you!
Sorry for the wall of text.

Nessie just jump from other threads where he was cornered to this thread.

What I post is to serve as reference to anyone know where he is coming from.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 6 guests