Mass graves

Nessie wrote:

Once again, Nessie declares that the rules of trigonometry don't apply to the holyhoax.

None of CS-C's pits are described as a rectangle. Then we have a "feature" that is ".47 meters deep". What is that "feature"? A building foundation? If the pits and "features" extend under the investigatory barrier why doesn't CS-C confirm that with GPR? Concrete is no barrier to GPR impulses so why didn't she show some short surveys that were perpendicular to a line extending from the pit? Oh, that's right, CS-C's "findings" are sacrosanct and not to be questioned. Well, at least to Nessie.

So, we're back to, "The ever so clever but eeevul Narzis knew how to get 'er done". No such thing as an impossibility with the eeevul Narzis around.

been-there wrote:

I'm not a clinical psychologist so I'm not qualified to say whether or not Nessie is sane. I was married to a psychologist but I don't think that is a qualification for diagnosing someone's sanity. I picked up some of the jargon, though.

Nessie seems to have a very rigid personality and is fanatical in his defense of the holyhoax. That fanaticism extends to denying reality such as the rules of trigonometry. That isn't an unusual phenomena. We currently have people who claim to be able to switch their gender at will in complete disregard of genetics. I don't think that either Nessie or the gender-benders can be judged insane on the basis of their fanatical beliefs. History is rife with the harmless (and not so harmless) looney-toonz and nutzoids where most people consider them to be ding-a-lings but not clinically delusional and insane.

I think that "disturbed" would be the harshest assessment I would put on Nessie. He's not like one fellow I knew who declared himself to be Jesus Christ and to prove it, took off his clothes and walked naked down the middle of main street in the town we lived.

As I see it you are a moderator here, albeit your own board. Set an example, man up and ignore those; stick to the issues.

No, I believe because of the evidence. You believe despite the evidence.

etheses.bham.ac.uk/id/eprint/3531/1/SturdyColls12PhD.pdf

She describes pits as rectangular. Page 474, G51-54, which are the pits to the side of the main memorial where the mass graves were located by the witnesses, are described as rectangular. Page 473, G44, which is in the Lazarette, is also described as rectangular and it extends under the smaller memorial



Other features are described as rectilinear, as they have straight edges. Your suggestion she only describes irregular holes is wrong.



Locations in her report of resistance survey and GPR imagery.

Figure 4.9. Locations of the resistance survey area at Treblinka II (page 149)
Figure 4.10. Locations of the GPR survey area at Treblinka II (page 150)
Figure 4.31. Electrical imaging results for the survey of feature G1 (page 210)
Figure 4.32. GPR time slices of feature G44 (shown in red) identified at Treblinka II in the area of the former Death Camp (page 213)
Figure 4.33. Resistance survey results for Area D showing features G29 and G32 Figure 4.34. A GPR image plot of features G50-54 identified at Treblinka II in the area of the former Death Camp (page 214)
Figure 4.35. A GPR profile showing one of the cut edges of feature G38, identified at Treblinka II in the area of the former Death Camp (page 218)

You will of course declare that to be insufficient and you need to see more! You will dodge that you cannot evidence undisturbed ground where witnesses said the graves were located.



According to you, if someone is poor at describing how they think something works, they are a liar and that thing never existed. The existence of something is only determined by how well a witness is able to describe how it works. That is not rational.

Nessie wrote:

"A" witness my shiny hiny. Witnesses who described the gas chambers ALL stated that they were hermetically sealed with three (3) of them known to have claimed that they were vacuum chambers. What happened to your convergence of testimony? Oh, that's right, it works when it confirms the holyhoax but becomes "just a mistake" when it doesn't. That's what isn't rational.

I do not know why that is. The image of G38, on page 218, Figure 4.35, is clearly rectangular and it is described as a pit. I presume the markings on the maps are just representative.



Wrong, you need to start quoting her words, as you lie constantly about what she has said;

"Five pits were located with the GPR (G50-G54) on the eastern side of the Death
Camp (Figures 4.29 and 4.34). Although the GPR survey was unable to achieve a large
enough depth range to determine the full extent of these pits, it is possible to say
that they were all deeper than four metres and that they were all of considerable
size in plan (G50 was visible to an extent of 34m x 12m, G51-19m x 12m, G52 – 22m
x c.15m, G53 – c.18m x 7m and G54 was visible to 20.8m x c. 14m)."




Not that you are an honest, unbiased, knowledgeable assessor of GPR and other geophysical surveys. As usual, the evidence is not what you want to hear, so you think up excuses to disbelieve it, since you have not evidence that the ground was largely undisturbed.

Nessie wrote:
CS-C's chart shows NO other method besides the GPR to locate the pits. GPR was the only method used to locate G-50 -G-54 and she wrote that the pits were 1-2 meters deep. That's what is written in her charts. She then goes on to say it was "possible to say that they were all deeper than four metres". It's possible for her to say anything she likes but how did she determine that the pits were all deeper than 4 meters? A divining rod? The GPR didn't show it and she didn't use any other method to measure the depth of the pits.