What is evidence?

Lets examine some deficiencies in Nessies methodology:

Witnesses lie, can be coerced; this is more pertinant when there is a huge Soviet Government Commission, a huge staff to assist, backed up by a murderous Secret Police.

Documents can be incriminating, such as orders, letters, but an Intelligence Intercept (Hoefle telegram) is hardly compelling. This can be easily be attached to any position to support a claim. What is needed is a real paper trail which auditors use to determine if serious fraud etc is committed.

Physical Items can be important, to show a murder weapon, the knife or gun used. This has been used by Police in the past to "plant" incriminating evidence, such as bullet shells. In any place where there are hundreds of people, there are going to be items dropped; this only indicates people were there.

Photos are great, but have been forged, even in the days before photoshop; the old forum had a whole thread dedicated to this.
It has been asked why the photos are obscure, ambiguous when a real spy would have taken real damning evidence. Zabecki would have shown the real smoke coming from TII from cremations, not the aftermath of some rebellion. The photos in existence show nothing untoward in reality; no queues of people lining to go to gas chambers, no smoke. Just a photo of what could be a rubbish burn off.

Archaeological studies would be helpful if they found anything that suggests murder of the claimed magnitude. What was found could easily be explained by mundane events such as dead people arriving by train and typhus.

Circumstances The reality is that all prisoners world wide are releived of their possessions. No one denies this happened to the Jews; in fact Prudent Regret explained clearly this was Aktion Reinhardt.

How can questioning the above be regarded as a hoax of any kind. Once again this a mind reversal as though the Holocaust claims were an established fact set in stone; in fact all the claims are very much on quicksand.

Nessie's witnesses to gas chambers, graves, exhumations and cremations on the magic Jew barbeque are neither reliable nor credible. Nessie fails right out of the gate.

In another thread, been-there has claimed;

rodoh.info/post/2727/thread

"I leave it to the sagacity of the fair-minded reader to ascertain:

1.) whether the Sturdy-Colls archeological research finding NO evidence of pits large enough to cremate 750,000 to 900,000 bodies is ”off-topic”,
and
2.) whether claiming my analysis is ”faulty” without explaining why, is further demonstration of the exact ’believer’ mindset I just identified"

Maybe he would be prepared to explain by what he means by C S-C found no evidence and his subsequent analysis of that supposed, no evidence.

You are assuming the vacuum claims are correct. Bear in mind, you have suggested witnesses said vacuums were created, but on examining what they said, they just said air was pumped out so people would suffocate. That would not require the creation of a vacuum, it only needs enough air to reduce the oxygen content, which would drop anyway in an enclosed space, as lots of people breathe.



You have cherry-picked the witnesses who said the least amount of wood and ignored others who just said wood was used.



Argument about possibility, is not evidence, when what is being claimed by many of the witnesses, is possible. It is possible to gas with an engine. It is possible to cremate on a metal grate over wood.

The mistake was yours. You claimed witnesses said a vacuum had been created, whereas they had merely said air was pumped out, so people would suffocate.

You constantly misrepresent what others say.



I have done so before, where I linked you to Nazi testimony;

www.holocaustresearchproject.org/ar/arperpsspeak.html

Gley "First a wood fire was kindled under the iron grate."
Matthes "The wood was doused with petrol."

Note the source of wood for Sobibor is referenced

Bauer "Part of the trolleys and rails originated from the sawmill that bordered the Sobibor camp. Additional trolleys and rails arrived by train from Trawniki.

There is evidence of the heat generated

Stangl "I know that in the beginning in Treblinka they used rails from the trolley to build the cremation grill. But it turned out that these were too weak and bent in the heat. They were replaced with real railroad rails.

Eye witnesses who were there and saw what happened, is evidence. Argument is not.




Multiple witnesses speak to the pyres working. That you do not think they were possible, does not matter.

Which, logically and evidentially means that vacuum claims are wrong. The people who knew the most about the functioning of the gas chambers at the AR camps were the Nazis and they ALL said engine exhaust was used and NONE said a vacuum was used. We even know why the vacuum rumour started, because ONE eyewitness who worked at the gas chambers believed the air was pumped out before the gas was pumped in and there were reports that people were left inside the chambers to suffocate.

You fail to differentiate between rumour, hearsay and eyewitness evidence, which is very dishonest of you. You cherry pick what some witnesses say and highlight that, without taking what they said into context and in relation to all the witness evidence.

If 20 witnesses say the same thing and 2 or 3 say something that is different, and we can explain why they said something different, then it is wrong to cherry pick and concentrate on the 2 or 3 who said something different.



Where is your evidence that the gap was only 50cm? Where is your evidence that all the witnesses said it was only brushwood that was used? You are again cherry picking and ignoring that witnesses varied in how they described the wood under the grate.



Many witnesses did not say how much wood was used, but there was enough to set the bodies on fire and enough heat to bend smaller metal rails. Exactly how much wood was used, will forever, be an unknown. The issue is, are the cremations evidenced to have happened? The answer is yes.



That does not matter. There are lots of historical events we do not know details about, but we know they happened. You constantly repeat an argument that is a logical fallacy. Just because witnesses do not give us precise details about how something happened, such that we cannot work out exactly how it happened, does not therefore mean all the witnesses lied and it did not happen. Your inability to understand logic and your desperate desire for the gassings to not be true, has clouded your mind and made you fall for the denier hoax.

You have been caught making too many false claims about what witnesses actually said. Name and quote your witnesses.



Faced with the choice of multiple witnesses who say what appears incredible and no witnesses at all to the only alternative, it makes logical and evidential sense to believe the witnesses.