There is a huge difference between provingBobcat wrote: ↑07 Jul 2021, 20:03 Nessie:
Bobcat needs to defend his claim that I admitted there is no archaeological proof, in that thread.
I already did that Nessie:
Of course, you can clarify your above statement, and determine who won the debate, by answering this one simple question:Nessie:
Bobcat seems surprised I said that archaeology does not prove what happened at TII.
One would think that a person who earlier alleged that there Is no archaeological proof of mass graves at Treblinka II and that archaeology does not prove what happened at TII, and who is now alleging that he's changed his mind, would be more than happy to clarify his current position on the matter.The MAXIMUM number of discernable / measurable extant mass graves of Treblinka II that you can conclusively prove actually exist, and in which legitimate archaeologists have, via bona fide, verifiably honest and conclusively documented methodology - conclusively proven to currently contain the remains of at least 2 people; is no less than __?__.
Nessie, failure to answer the above question is ipso facto proof that your earlier allegation that there Is no archaeological proof of mass graves at Treblinka II is correct and that I won the debate.
1- "what happened at TII"
2 - proving that mass graves were dug
3 - proving how many bodies those graves contain
The different enquiry methods of archaeology and history are required to answer all of those questions. That you do not know that, makes it puzzling why you obsess about graves. Why do you obsess about one part of what happened and do you understand what archaeology and history can and cannot evidence?