Burden of proof: The fables of Russell's Teapot and Blobel's vanished graves

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
hermod
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2076
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:52 am

Burden of proof: The fables of Russell's Teapot and Blobel's vanished graves

Postby hermod » 3 years 8 months ago (Wed Sep 21, 2016 11:09 pm)

Tired of Holohoaxers, always posturing as advocates of an established/proven fact, needing prove nothing. While they're just fallacious fraudsters deliberately evading their burden of proof.

Speaking for itself, I think...

"The Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge but shall take judicial notice thereof."
- Article 21, Charter of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, London, August 8th 1945.
The fable of Russell’s Teapot is a well-known illustration of the fallacy of switching the burden of proof. It was coined by the philosopher and mathematician Bertrand Russell in a 1952 essay:

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.


The fable of Blobel's vanished graves is a well-known illustration of the fallacy of switching the burden of proof. It was coined by the alcoholic German Paul Blobel in a 1945 mock trial:

If I were to suggest that between 1941 and 1945 6 million Jews vanished without a trace in an unparalleled mass slaughter, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that there is no physical evidence for that crime because I have destroyed all the corpses. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is anti-Semitic hate speech on the part of Zionist reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense...but I wouldn't be thanks to specific political interests, agenda, propaganda and pressure.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KayBys8gaJY

The reversed responsibility response – switching the burden of proof

December 4, 2012

I know that this tactic is a red flag because no-one can prove that is isn’t.
The fable of Russell’s Teapot is a well-known illustration of the fallacy of switching the burden of proof. It was coined by the philosopher and mathematician Bertrand Russell in a 1952 essay:

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.


How to recognise this tactic

This tactic is usually used by someone who’s made a claim and then been asked for evidence to support it. Their response is to demand that you show that the claim is wrong and if you can’t, to insist that this means their claim is true.

Why is it that few people seem to have problems with the burden of proof when it comes to the innocence or guilt of a murder suspect, but then cannot apply the same exact logic to more esoteric issues, such as the existence of ghosts, gods, and the like?

Massimo Pigliucci, Italian – American philosopher, 2010

Why do people use this tactic?

People use this tactic to avoid supplying supporting evidence – usually because there is none. In attempting to distract you from this lack of evidence, they try to convince you that the responsibility of supplying evidence lies with you.

What’s wrong with this tactic

When anyone makes a claim that a certain entity or relationship exists, they have the responsibility of supplying supporting evidence. Without such evidence, the claim is worthless. The fact that you know of no falsifying evidence is irrelevant. Those who claim that an entity or relationship does not exist do not need to supply evidence.

In science, the default position about any relationship is that it does not exist. This position is called the “null hypothesis“. For a claim to be accepted, the proposer must present sufficient real-world evidence for the null hypothesis to be rejected.

What to do when confronted by this tactic

Don’t be tempted to take on the task of falsifying the perpetrator’s claim. And don’t succumb to the pressure to accept it as true if you don’t have the evidence to refute it. Insist that they must provide supporting evidence from real-world tests.

Variations and related tactics

Reversing the burden of proof is a form of the argument from ignorance fallacy, in which it is argued that a claim must be taken as true if it hasn’t been shown to be false.

Examples

The Waubra Foundation is an Australian organisation that claims wind turbines cause health problems. Here‘s a letter from the foundation’s CEO in which an attempt is made to switch the burden of proof:

I would be obliged if you will direct me to the population studies or even small case control studies, which have been performed in the vicinity of large operating wind turbines, confirming that there are no adverse health effects for any of the residents from these wind turbines, including sleep deprivation, stress related illnesses, and symptoms of vestibular dysfunction.

The letter is directed to Simon Chapman, who responds here.

A classical case of reversing the burden of proof is that of the theist who argues that gods must exist because non-theists have no evidence that they do not exist. Here’s an excellent video from QualiaSoup exploring that issue:


https://scienceornot.net/2012/12/04/the ... -of-proof/
"But, however the world pretends to divide itself, there are ony two divisions in the world to-day - human beings and Germans. – Rudyard Kipling, The Morning Post (London), June 22, 1915

Atigun
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 498
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:13 am

Re: Burden of proof: The fables of Russell's Teapot and Blobel's vanished graves

Postby Atigun » 3 years 8 months ago (Thu Sep 22, 2016 12:44 am)

Nessie takes the burden of proof one step further by declaring that Professor X (or whoever) said it was true so it must be true. For Nessie, the fact that Professor X offers no actual proof of his/her statements is irrelevant.

User avatar
borjastick
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2614
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:52 am
Location: Europe

Re: Burden of proof: The fables of Russell's Teapot and Blobel's vanished graves

Postby borjastick » 3 years 8 months ago (Thu Sep 22, 2016 1:43 am)

Well done hermod I enjoyed reading that very much. The reversed responsibility argument runs thick through all sorts of processes in general living today. Example the claims that mobile phones will boil an egg and fry your brain or your testicles, if you keep it in your trouser pocket. The government and manufacturers say, 'there's no study that proves this so please show us your scientific proof'.

However the tide has turned a little because the standard route of the holocaust belief system was based on your reversed responsibility theory, that we believe it because we are told by witnesses, people who were there and saw it, thus it must be true, and there is nothing to prove otherwise. Science and logic were deliberately ignored, if they were ever even considered.

Now however we are able to prove these claims of mass industrial murder in gas chambers and as part of a system to exterminate the jews are nonsense. It was not physically possible and the remaining evidence proves exactly the opposite happened, that inmates in the camp system were looked after, as best as possible under the circumstances and the camps had all the support services needed.
'Of the four million Jews under Nazi control in WW2, six million died and alas only five million survived.'

'We don't need evidence, we have survivors' - israeli politician

Hieldner
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 171
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2016 5:21 am

Re: Burden of proof: The fables of Russell's Teapot and Blobel's vanished graves

Postby Hieldner » 3 years 8 months ago (Thu Sep 22, 2016 3:35 am)

Hilberg’s answer to this: https://youtu.be/qDr6fTa8sLg?t=11m57s
I mean, they kind of say, you’ve got to prove everything—prove that you are alive, prove where you were born, prove that you breathe, prove, prove, prove.
»[Holocaust soap] odor, if captured and retained… would preserve the core of an individual soul… The undesirable smell of the extract spoke of the spectral Derridian trace… that continued to remind its consumers of their own bio-ontology.«—B. Shallcross

User avatar
hermod
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2076
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:52 am

Re: Burden of proof: The fables of Russell's Teapot and Blobel's vanished graves

Postby hermod » 3 years 8 months ago (Thu Sep 22, 2016 6:06 am)

Hieldner wrote:Hilberg’s answer to this: https://youtu.be/qDr6fTa8sLg?t=11m57s
I mean, they kind of say, you’ve got to prove everything—prove that you are alive, prove where you were born, prove that you breathe, prove, prove, prove.


Funny to see Hilberg's patent exasperation because of mere evidence requests by Revisionists.

Would evidence requests by Revisionists make the Pope of the Holohoax himself happy or exasperated if he had such evidence in his hands as often alleged? Answering this question amounts to assessing the emptiness of the Exterminationist case.

Image
"But, however the world pretends to divide itself, there are ony two divisions in the world to-day - human beings and Germans. – Rudyard Kipling, The Morning Post (London), June 22, 1915

User avatar
hermod
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2076
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:52 am

Re: Burden of proof: The fables of Russell's Teapot and Blobel's vanished graves

Postby hermod » 3 years 8 months ago (Thu Sep 22, 2016 6:25 am)

borjastick wrote:Well done hermod I enjoyed reading that very much.


Thank you. Glad you enjoyed it, borjastick.

The reversed responsibility argument runs thick through all sorts of processes in general living today. Example the claims that mobile phones will boil and egg and fry your brain or your testicles, if you keep it in your trouser pocket. The government and manufacturers say, 'there's no study that proves this so please show us your scientific proof'.

However the tide has turned a little because the standard route of the holocaust belief system was based on your reversed responsibility theory, that we believe it because we are told by witnesses, people who were there and saw it, thus it must be true, and there is nothing to prove otherwise. Science and logic were deliberately ignored, if they were ever even considered.


If we are to believe things only because we are/were told by witnesses, there should be departments of Ufology, Witchcraft, Ghost hunting and Cryptozoology in every university of this world.

Now however we are able to prove these claims of mass industrial murder in gas chambers and as part of a system to exterminate the jews are nonsense. It was not physically possible and the remaining evidence proves exactly the opposite happened, that inmates in the camp system were looked after, as best as possible under the circumstances and the camps had all the support services needed.


I concur. It's not because we don't have to do something (according to a normal burden of proof) that we must avoid doing it.

Atigun wrote:Nessie takes the burden of proof one step further by declaring that Professor X (or whoever) said it was true so it must be true. For Nessie, the fact that Professor X offers no actual proof of his/her statements is irrelevant.


Perhaps that's because he doesn't know the source of his claims. I've noticed that Hasbara trolls have lists of arguments, books and names for 'debates' but that most of them know nothing beyond the content of the lists provided to them.
"But, however the world pretends to divide itself, there are ony two divisions in the world to-day - human beings and Germans. – Rudyard Kipling, The Morning Post (London), June 22, 1915

User avatar
Kingfisher
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1673
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:55 pm

Re: Burden of proof: The fables of Russell's Teapot and Blobel's vanished graves

Postby Kingfisher » 3 years 8 months ago (Thu Sep 22, 2016 10:12 am)

Hermod:

I discovered that "Qualiasoup" YouTube channel several years ago and I used one of his videos for a page on the What Really Happened website:

http://whatreallyhappened.info/critical.html

Sadly, I doubt if Qualiasoup is a revisionist, but he's an example of the sort of mindset we should be making our pitch to.

Critical thinking and the Holocaust

I consider myself a sceptical revisionist. Indeed, at the risk of falling into the No True Scotsman fallacy, I would say that true revisionism is scepticism.
So what do I mean by scepticism? I mean the application of critical thinking. Examine everything, suspend judgement, accept only what is proved to your satisfaction to have been objectively demonstrated, and even then accept a balance of probability based on the evidence. Do not believe anything absolutely. Be prepared to change your position and admit you were mistaken if the evidence justifies it. Reject any personal attacks and concentrate only on the issue. 2+2=4, even if Hitler, Stalin or Osama bin Laden says so.

One of my favourite YouTube videos concerns Critical Thinking. The author of this video has, as far as I am aware, never expressed any view on the Holocaust, and so much the better, since we are interested only in his methodology.



So how do we apply Critical Thinking to the Holocaust? I am not suggesting that Critical Thinking will automatically lead you to reject the standard Holocaust story. I am saying that it should lead you to ask questions and to examine the evidence. To ask whether you have been expected to accept its claims at face value, on authority alone, or whether there is sound factual evidence to support them. It should go without saying that you must, of course, apply similar strict principles when examining the claims of Revisionists.

How do we apply the advice of this video to the Holocaust?
We must want to pinpoint and minimise biasing influence from upbringing and culture, to seek out and be guided by knowledge and evidence that fits with reality, even if it refutes our cherished beliefs. Indeed, when we think critically beliefs tend not to be cherished, but held on the understanding that if they are shown to be unfounded, a change of position is the most appropriate response.


The Holocaust has become a cherished belief that we are very resistant to questioning. I speak from experience: 10 years ago I took it for granted as much as anyone; submitting it to critical thinking was a slow process. I now think it very unlikely that the conventional narrative of extermination in gas chambers is correct. I find the Revisionist position of harsh camps, disease, hard labour, malnutrition, exposure, deprivation and deportation better argued and more probable.

Scepticism does not mean an indiscriminate rejection of ideas, as some mistakenly believe. It refers to doubting and suspending our judgement about claims with which we are presented, so that we do not simply accept claims which may be unjustified, but first take the time to understand them, examining the reasoning and possible assumptions and biases behind them.


Don't just accept Holocaust claims of gas chambers, a policy of deliberate extermination and an immutable total of six million on authority, but ask to see the evidence. What assumptions are made? Are the proponents subject to bias arising from their political or ethnic background? (You should ask the same questions of their opponents. In both cases this will help you understand motive and to explain and discount emotion. The historical facts, of course, are not influenced by the emotions of either side.)

Reasoning should be based in sound consistent logic, not on emotions and social pressure.


Which of these is most people's attachment to the Holocaust story based on? What social pressures are you under to accept the official version of the Holocaust? Question it and you face social ostracism and maybe loss of your job. No mainstream media and no teacher at any level dare do anything other than uncritically regurgitate the approved storyline and in most of Continental Europe people are jailed for several years or subjected to heavy financial penalties for questioning it. What kind of truth needs defences like that?

The truth of factual claims is not determined by the emotion that accompanies them


How many Holocaust narratives seek to manipulate your emotions and thereby suppress your critical faculties? No one disputes that Ann Frank suffered a horrible death. But what is the relevance of her death from typhus to claims of gas chambers and extermination? Did you indeed know that she died from typhus, or have you been allowed to innocently assume she was gassed?

...or by the fact they may be believed by certain social groups.


Neo-Nazis and white supremacists are naturally drawn to a revisionist view of the Holocaust. This is then used to imply that anyone who questions any aspect of the orthodox version of events must be a "Holocaust Denier" and fall into this category. It is a vicious circle: an electric fence is created which prevents, or at least dissuades, someone of a more liberal outlook and the public in general from any kind of critical investigation. The issue becomes one of pure emotion.

This can in no way affect the factual, historical issue of what happened during the Second World War. As it happens, revisionists come from across the political spectrum. The first person to seriously examine and question the orthodox story of the camps, Paul Rassinier, was a French Socialist who had been imprisoned in Buchenwald and Dora for his Resistance activity, suffered badly there and returned a 100% invalid. David Cole is an atheist, Jewish neo-conservative and Zionist. Josef Ginsburg was a Romanian Jew who had been deported. Roger Garaudy was a Catholic and a Communist. Bradley Smith is a tolerant, non-racist American libertarian whose previous wife was Jewish and his present wife Mexican. Friedrich Berg and Frederick Toben, on the other hand, are self-avowed Hitlerites, but a Hitler who, they think, did not perpetrate the atrocities he is accused of. The present writer is British, in the bottom left (liberal) quarter of the political compass, and usually votes Liberal Democrat or Green.

One of the biggest barriers to critical thinking is an unwillingness to see complex issues in anything other than black and white terms. If one sees only two options, when more exist, this constitutes a false dichotomy... If we think in false dichotomies we will draw false conclusions.

Issues don't come much more black and white than the Holocaust as it is conventionally presented. You believe it all, lock, stock and barrel, or you are a Holocaust Denier. But “Did the Holocaust happen?” is a meaningless question. The valid question is “What actually happened in the set of events that have come to be referred to as the Holocaust?” along with “What level of probability can we attach to our conclusions?”

We may also misrepresent others by wrongly assuming that if they don't hold attitude X they must hold attitude Y.


I couldn't understand how anyone could deny the Holocaust. The only explanation I could conceive of was that they were bovver-booted skinheads from Combat 18 who denied the self-evident because of their racist prejudices, which is, of course precisely the image the Holocaust Industry has put great effort into promoting. But when I summoned the intellectual curiosity to look for the answer, I was astonished to find that they did not deny the deportations, the exploitation and the deaths.They even reproduced those horrific photographs of emaciated corpses at Belsen in support of their position. What they questioned was the extent, the cause and the intent: specifically the use of gas chambers and intent to exterminate. I did not at that point accept their position, but I realised that it was quite different from what it had been represented to me as.
The issue is anything but black and white. The mainstream story has itself been heavily revised. In the 1940s and 1950s we were told that there were gas chambers in camps all over Germany. Now they are said to have existed only in Poland. The numbers of deaths claimed for individual camps has shrunk, but the 6 million never changes.

The critical thinker can handle uncertainty, preferring to be aware of their own areas of ignorance, and they can wait for valid evidence and evidence-based answers... It [critical thinking] moves us away from rash conclusions, mystification and unwillingness to question received wisdom, authority and tradition.


The relevance is self-evident.

A.R.

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3449
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: Burden of proof: The fables of Russell's Teapot and Blobel's vanished graves

Postby Hektor » 3 years 8 months ago (Thu Sep 22, 2016 1:53 pm)

Atigun wrote:Nessie takes the burden of proof one step further by declaring that Professor X (or whoever) said it was true so it must be true. For Nessie, the fact that Professor X offers no actual proof of his/her statements is irrelevant.



Point out that the working hypothesis A is an accusation and hence the burden of proof automatically rests on it. It's different when statements are just fact claims. Then either side has to give proof or deliver arguments for its position.

Take a pink elephant in the room. Position A: there is a pink elephant in the room. Position B: There is no pink elephant in the room.

Position A would be required to show the pink Elephant in the room. by pictures, traces, inspecting the room.
Position B would be required to show that there is none, which again can be done by showing pictures and investigating the room.


The Holocaust Case is not only under burden of proof because it's an accusation, it's also dubious because it WAS indeed part of (post-) war propaganda, which can be shown from documents, articles etc. I'd say that demands even more scrutiny.


@Kingfischer

"Critical Thinking" aka Logic or Dialectics in the Trivium is for most not (anymore) required part of the curriculum. But even the courses sometimes required as Logic 101 are of such a nature that even most experts would most likely fail them. And even if they pass them cum laude, many wouldn't apply the lessons/methods in a lot of their thinking. You still would see them committing appeals to authority and applying straw men in their arguments. A more difficult to spot is the category mistake. But there are several others. And even academic literature as well as debates are rife with them.... I'd say that's more a human nature thing than deliberate deception on their parts. People just think in those terms that they accept appeals to authority or majority opinion on face value. In fact that seems to be required to get "social consensus" on issues. Simply because most people just don't think in terms of reflecting and questioning information they're confronted with outside their private or professional scope. Entertaining and Expressing a popular opinion is just a bit uncomfortable to most, if not all. And if you do, you'll often seen as someone that just gets a kick out of disagreeing (Such people also exist of course). Apply that to the Holocaust a bit. People believe it, because they think everybody else does (appeal to popularity) after all it's in the news and the movies and yes the "experts" say it did happen (appeal to authority). And isn't it Nazi/Antisemitic/Racist to question (moralistic fallacy), yes even against the "law" to do so (appeal to force). If the person is more knowledgeable it will point to concentration camps and that the Allies saw it and took pictures of it (category mistake in terms of proof offered, versus what's required and actually under dispute). I think I could go on with that.

While I think the burden of proof is definitely with the Holocaust proponents. And that proof works like empirical evidence -> valid deductions from it, we are facing another issue and that's just a bit more political: We propose a "fringe opinion" in the public mind. So our whole approach must be more convincing than would usually required. Of course we are also facing a resource problem. But we could focus even more on the way we make arguments and yes, how we present them. That we ourselves find them convincing isn't enough. They must be valid or at least worth considering for an ordinary educated person

Nessie..
Member
Member
Posts: 54
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2016 2:03 pm

Re: Burden of proof: The fables of Russell's Teapot and Blobel's vanished graves

Postby Nessie.. » 3 years 8 months ago (Sat Sep 24, 2016 2:24 pm)

My attitude is that ALL sides should present ALL of their evidence and reversing the burden of roof is unacceptable.

Claiming if not A then therefore B is unacceptable (for example, if non one was gassed at Birkenau (A), then therefore they were all transited to other places(B)). All evidence, A and B has to be checked and verified.

Corroborated evidence is better evidence than uncorroborated evidence.

Checking, verifying and corroborating also applies to Professor X.

Having no evidence to back up a claim makes it a faith based belief.

It is possible to prove a negative, such as something did not happen. So if one party claims an event did not happen, it is up to them to evidence that claim.

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3449
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: Burden of proof: The fables of Russell's Teapot and Blobel's vanished graves

Postby Hektor » 3 years 8 months ago (Sat Sep 24, 2016 5:00 pm)

As for any accusation burden of proof is on the accuser. Or can you anyhow justify to retract rights from Germans/Nazis, etc. Essentially that was however achieved in the public mind by propaganda.

You don't have to prove that someone wasn't killed. If a persons whereabouts can't be determined. Then he or she is simply missing.

Funny how we never get a listing like:
Jews killed: X00.000
Jews missing: Y.000.000

That's because the extermination narrative was pushed right from the beginning, so any Jew missing would simply presumed that adding to the belief in the extermination story again.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10034
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: Burden of proof: The fables of Russell's Teapot and Blobel's vanished graves

Postby Hannover » 3 years 8 months ago (Sat Sep 24, 2016 5:59 pm)

Hektor wrote:Funny how we never get a listing like:
Jews killed: X00.000
Jews missing: Y.000.000

That's because the extermination narrative was pushed right from the beginning, so any Jew missing would simply presumed that adding to the belief in the extermination story again.

The reason we never get a listing like:
"Jews killed: X00.000, Jews missing: Y.000.000", is because Jews have been marketing the '6,000,000' lie since 1869, click below:

Image

- Hannover

Image

Revisionists are just the messengers, the absurd impossibility of the laughable 'holocaust' storyline is the message.
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

Atigun
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 498
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:13 am

Re: Burden of proof: The fables of Russell's Teapot and Blobel's vanished graves

Postby Atigun » 3 years 8 months ago (Sat Sep 24, 2016 11:34 pm)

Nessie can't seem to get a grip on the concept of physical evidence. At Treblinka it's claimed that somewhere between 700,000 and 850,000 people were killed with carbon monoxide and buried in a series of mass graves. Where are the graves? With the high tech geophysical gear currently available, locating those graves is just a matter of looking for those graves. Caroline Sturdy-Colls has stated that she didn't find the graves using GPR and LIDAR but would return to Treblinka and locate the graves. That has been four years ago.

It's also claimed that the 700,000 to 850,000 bodies were exhumed with the excavators from the Treblinka I gravel quarry and cremated on massive grills built from railroad rails and concrete pylons. Using the clam shell buckets of the excavators to exhume the cadavers would have mangled the bodies beyond recognition so the claim that whole bodies were stacked on the grill is absolutely impossible. Also, the claim that the bodies were cremated using essentially no fuel, that the bodies themselves acted as the fuel is impossible.

The mass graves don't exist and the means for disposing of the bodies is impossible. Nobody was gassed, buried, exhumed, cremated and reburied at Treblinka II. It was a transit camp.

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3449
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: Burden of proof: The fables of Russell's Teapot and Blobel's vanished graves

Postby Hektor » 3 years 8 months ago (Sun Sep 25, 2016 6:23 am)

Hannover wrote:...
The reason we never get a listing like:
"Jews killed: X00.000, Jews missing: Y.000.000", is because Jews have been marketing the '6,000,000' lie since 1869, click below:

Image
.....


But in/after any war there is the question of those people that are just missing. It was also a big issue after WW2, just not for the Jews.

That fact alone should raise some suspicions.

Nessie..
Member
Member
Posts: 54
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2016 2:03 pm

Re: Burden of proof: The fables of Russell's Teapot and Blobel's vanished graves

Postby Nessie.. » 3 years 8 months ago (Sun Sep 25, 2016 7:21 am)

Atigun wrote:Nessie can't seem to get a grip on the concept of physical evidence. At Treblinka it's claimed that somewhere between 700,000 and 850,000 people were killed with carbon monoxide and buried in a series of mass graves. Where are the graves? With the high tech geophysical gear currently available, locating those graves is just a matter of looking for those graves. Caroline Sturdy-Colls has stated that she didn't find the graves using GPR and LIDAR but would return to Treblinka and locate the graves. That has been four years ago.


The original mass graves full of corpses were dug up, the bodies cremated and mixed back into the ground. That would leave a lot of disturbance in the ground and a mix of ash, cremains and earth. That disturbance is what has been found using GPR at the time it was being used to locate buildings. That physical evidence matches witness testimony from the time.

Atigun wrote:It's also claimed that the 700,000 to 850,000 bodies were exhumed with the excavators from the Treblinka I gravel quarry and cremated on massive grills built from railroad rails and concrete pylons. Using the clam shell buckets of the excavators to exhume the cadavers would have mangled the bodies beyond recognition so the claim that whole bodies were stacked on the grill is absolutely impossible. Also, the claim that the bodies were cremated using essentially no fuel, that the bodies themselves acted as the fuel is impossible.


We do not what type of excavator was used to exhume the bodies. Since you say it was not a clam shell as that is impossible to do, then another type of excavator was used. Unless you can rule out all forms of excavator as being capable of digging, which you obviously cannot.

There is forensic evidence that bodies will burn using fat as their own fuel, I have linked to it before.

Atigun wrote:The mass graves don't exist and the means for disposing of the bodies is impossible. Nobody was gassed, buried, exhumed, cremated and reburied at Treblinka II. It was a transit camp.


Please evidence it was a transit camp.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10034
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: Burden of proof: The fables of Russell's Teapot and Blobel's vanished graves

Postby Hannover » 3 years 8 months ago (Sun Sep 25, 2016 8:05 am)

Nessie,

- So where is this "mix of ash, cremains and earth" for the alleged ca. 900, 000 Jews? Show it to us.

- Where is a verifiable laboratory analysis which shows that the remains of ca. 900,000 Jews was found "in the ground"?

-Show us your claimed "physical evidence" that supposedly matches the "witness testimony" ... that was never given in a court of law with verbatim text, that was never cross examined in a court of law with verbatim text to review.

- Show us the GPR scans you allege.

Image
- Show us the excavation & alleged contents of the alleged 'mass graves' shown in yellow above.

- The laughable excavator is shown in Willenberg's book, so called 'Suriving Treblinka', why do you ignore it?
see:
'Skeptic Forum vs. CODOH Forum: alleged Treblinka mass graves'
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=9501

- Present proof that Treblinka was the site for the extermination of an alleged ca. 900,000 Jews.

No dodging any of these.

Hannover

Revisionists are just the messengers, the absurd impossibility of the laughable 'holocaust' storyline is the message.
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 11 guests