Challenge to NFrNJ and Believers: Why can't you show us the alleged 900,000 Jew remains in this Treblinka "grave"?

[Moderator]

To Clay. I have attempted to answer your questions several times. The Moderator won’t post my answers. I attempted to start a new thread to specifically discuss them, and it was supposedly approved but has not appeared on the board. I have not been dodging your questions and would love to have a discussion. However the moderator will not allow me to answer or discuss the questions.

À and C are of course answered as being true. But please do not now ask me to prove that with 100% confidence as I do not believe that such a level of confidence is possible in any subject other than mathematics (and even then I have my doubts).

Please do not ask me to show you reams of evidence to back up my claim that those answers are “true”. As we are after all grown ups and we all know that those claims have been made.

Facts:
You have not produced what Clay has asked for. Quite the opposite. You have simply dodged presenting what you in fact claim exists simply because what you claim exists obviously does not.

Clay and revisionists are just the messengers, it's the ridiculous nature of your unsupportable claims that is the message. IOW, you have been 'busted' on your own claims. Your untenable situation is on you, no one else.

You have not started a new thread as you claim. That is frankly another brazen lie.
You have been dodging repeatedly as this thread and others attest.

For someone who absurdly claims to be censored, your posts are certainly numerous.

"100% confidence"?
You haven't produced anything with any degree of "confidence". It's noted that you don't even attempt to tell us what you claim to have produced. That makes sense since you have produced nothing.

One either has proof of 900,000 Jew remains as alleged or they do not. You and your brethren clearly do not.

M1

[NFrNJ]

[Name calling removed - M1]

I have fully answered his questions, or sought clarification of them when they are not clear. No I have not supplied the non existent photos that you and others demand because, and you can read this bit slowly over and over until you get it I to your thick head -NO SUCH PHOTOGRAPHS EXIST BECAUSE NO SUCH EXCAVATION HAS HAPPENED.

So how could I provide what he asks for, knowing that it cannot be provided? This is a simple question begging type argument. Like his 100% confidence requirement - nothing is known in history with 100% co fodence so the question is empty. The answer always has to be “no”. And that is not an interesting or significant answer, it is just the answer the begged questions requires.

An interesting question would be do you think it is proven beyond reasonable doubt? And then you could have an interesting discussion about what reasonable doubt means. But you don’t want to discuss that sort of thing.

[Hannover]

[Name calling removed - M1]

I have fully answered his questions, or sought clarification of them when they are not clear. No I have not supplied the non existent photos that you and others demand because, and you can read this bit slowly over and over until you get it I to your thick head -NO SUCH PHOTOGRAPHS EXIST BECAUSE NO SUCH EXCAVATION HAS HAPPENED.

So how could I provide what he asks for, knowing that it cannot be provided? This is a simple question begging type argument. Like his 100% confidence requirement - nothing is known in history with 100% co fodence so the question is empty. The answer always has to be “no”. And that is not an interesting or significant answer, it is just the answer the begged questions requires.

An interesting question would be do you think it is proven beyond reasonable doubt? And then you could have an interesting discussion about what reasonable doubt means. But you don’t want to discuss that sort of thing.

NFrNJ, you clearly do not understand the narrative which you are attempting to defend.
The simple matter is that it IS claimed that excavations happened.

- Recall the excavation claim by the Soviets in 1945.

- And here:

Caption: "An open mass grave in the Treblinka death camp. A German photograph from 1943"

- Recall the excavation claim by Caroline Sturdy Colls.

- Recall the excavation claim by William Mitchell:
Another Treblinka "Archaeologist"? William Mitchell claims to have "vital evidence to prove the deniers wrong"
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=13050

- There are also claims of a "Treblinka Gold Rush" where Polish civilians went to the camp as grave robbers / scavengers & supposedly dug up remains.

- According to the verdict of the Düsseldorf Jury Court at the trial of 1964-1965:
"one of the pits [at Treblinka] contained no less than approximately 80,000 corpses"
(Adalbert Rückerl, NS-Vernichtungslager im Spiegel deutscher Strafprozesse, Frankfurt 1977, pp. 204f)

for more:
'Photographs of mass graves from "Extermination camp" Treblinka'
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=13692

NFrNJ, you have twisted yourself into knots trying to claim that the 900,000 Jew remains exist but somehow there are no photos, when in fact it is claimed that such photos exist, albeit laughable, contradictory, and ridiculous as these "photos" are.
And it's all predicated on the scientifically impossible 'Treblinka gas chambers' claims.

Nothing could be more clear, you continue to dodge requests to show the alleged 900,000 Jew remains at Treblinka because any attempted response from you blows up in your face and proves that 900,000 Jews were not murdered there. That should be good news ... to the rationally minded.

- Hannover

[Clay]

To Clay... À and C are of course answered as being true.

A: Is it - True. - or - False. - that; it has been alleged in orthodox historiography and/or the media that huge pits were dug and utilized as mass graves at Treblinka II - _?_

NFrNJ's answer: True.

Follow up questions:

NFrNJ, can you show me evidence that it has been alleged in orthodox historiography and/or the media that huge pits were dug and utilized as mass graves at Treblinka II - Yes. - or - No. - ??

NFrNJ, can you prove, with 100% certainty, that it has been alleged in orthodox historiography and/or the media that huge pits were dug and utilized as mass graves at Treblinka II - Yes. - or - No. - ??

B: Is it - True. - or - False. - that; it has been conclusively proven - with 100% certainty - that huge pits were actually dug and utilized as mass graves at Treblinka II - _?_

C: Is it - True. - or - False. - that; it has been alleged in orthodox historiography and/or the media that mass graves have been discovered by archaeologists / forensic investigators at Treblinka II - _?_

NFrNJ's answer: True.

Follow up questions:

NFrNJ, can you show me evidence that it has been alleged in orthodox historiography and/or the media that mass graves have been discovered by archaeologists / forensic investigators at Treblinka II - Yes. - or - No. - ??

NFrNJ, can you prove, with 100% certainty, that it has been alleged in orthodox historiography and/or the media that mass graves have been discovered by archaeologists / forensic investigators at Treblinka II - Yes. - or - No. - ??

D: Is it - True. - or - False. - that; it can be conclusively proven - with 100% certainty - that mass graves have actually been discovered by archaeologists / forensic investigators at Treblinka II - _?_

E: Can you conclusively prove - with 100% certainty - that archaeologists / forensic investigators have actually located / proven the existence of mass graves at Treblinka II - Yes. - or - No. - _?_

* * * * *

#5 - List all of the Treblinka II graves / cremation pits in question that you can prove actually exist and currently contain at least an iota of human remains: __?__.

#10 - List all of the Treblinka II graves / cremation pits in question that you can prove currently contain the remains of at least 2 human beings: __?__.

#15 - List all of the Treblinka II graves / cremation pits in question that you can prove currently contain the remains of more than 6 human beings: __?__.

#20 - List all of the Treblinka II graves / cremation pits in question that you can prove currently contain the remains of at least 21 human beings: __?__.

#25 - Of the 15 alleged Treblinka II graves / cremation pits in question - the one that you can prove currently contains the most human remains - is number: __?__.

[Clay]

To Clay... As we are after all grown ups and we all know that those claims have been made.

Can you show us evidence that "those claims" have been made - Yes. - or - No. - ??

Can you prove that "those claims" have been made - Yes. - or - No. - ??

[Clay]

nothing is known in history with 100% co fodence

This is about science NFrNJ.

[Clay]

To Clay

À and C are of course answered as being true.

As we are after all grown ups and we all know that those claims have been made.

I have not been dodging your questions and would love to have a discussion.

Sounds good to me NFrNJ.

Let's continue on with some more foundational questions:


NFrNJ, is it - True. - or - False. - that; it has been alleged in orthodox historiography and/or the media that huge pits were dug and utilized as mass graves at Treblinka II - _?_

NFrNJ's answer: True.

NFrNJ, can you show me conclusive evidence that it has been alleged in orthodox historiography and/or the media that huge pits were dug and utilized as mass graves at Treblinka II - Yes. - or - No. - ??

NFrNJ's answer: ??

NFrNJ, can you conclusively prove that it has been alleged in orthodox historiography and/or the media that huge pits were dug and utilized as mass graves at Treblinka II - Yes. - or - No. - ??

NFrNJ's answer: ??

NFrNJ, is it - True. - or - False. - that it has been conclusively proven that huge pits were actually dug and utilized as mass graves at Treblinka II - _?_

NFrNJ's answer: ??

NFrNJ, is it - True. - or - False. - that it has been alleged in orthodox historiography and/or the media that mass graves have been discovered by archaeologists / forensic investigators at Treblinka II - _?_

NFrNJ's answer: True.

NFrNJ, can you show me conclusive evidence that it has been alleged in orthodox historiography and/or the media that mass graves have been discovered by archaeologists / forensic investigators at Treblinka II - Yes. - or - No. - ??

NFrNJ's answer: ??

NFrNJ, can you conclusively prove that it has been alleged in orthodox historiography and/or the media that mass graves have been discovered by archaeologists / forensic investigators at Treblinka II - Yes. - or - No. - ??

NFrNJ's answer: ??

NFrNJ, is it - True. - or - False. - that it can be conclusively proven that mass graves have actually been discovered by archaeologists / forensic investigators at Treblinka II - _?_

NFrNJ's answer: ??

NFrNJ, can you conclusively prove that archaeologists / forensic investigators have actually located / proven the existence of mass graves at Treblinka II - Yes. - or - No. - _?_

NFrNJ's answer: ??

NFrNJ, list all of the Treblinka II graves / cremation pits in question that you can conclusively prove actually exist and currently contain at least an iota of human remains: __?__.

NFrNJ, list all of the Treblinka II graves / cremation pits in question that you can conclusively prove currently contain the remains of at least 2 human beings: __?__.

NFrNJ, list all of the Treblinka II graves / cremation pits in question that you can conclusively prove currently contain the remains of more than 6 human beings: __?__.

NFrNJ, list all of the Treblinka II graves / cremation pits in question that you can conclusively prove currently contain the remains of at least 21 human beings: __?__.

NFrNJ, of the 15 alleged Treblinka II graves / cremation pits in question - the one that you can conclusively prove currently contains the most human remains - is number: __?__.

[Otium]

No I have not supplied the non existent photos that you and others demand because, and you can read this bit slowly over and over until you get it I to your thick head -NO SUCH PHOTOGRAPHS EXIST BECAUSE NO SUCH EXCAVATION HAS HAPPENED.

So how could I provide what he asks for, knowing that it cannot be provided? This is a simple question begging type argument. Like his 100% confidence requirement - nothing is known in history with 100% confidence so the question is empty. The answer always has to be “no”. And that is not an interesting or significant answer, it is just the answer the begged questions requires.

An interesting question would be do you think it is proven beyond reasonable doubt? And then you could have an interesting discussion about what reasonable doubt means. But you don’t want to discuss that sort of thing.

You admit that there's been no excavations, and no photographs taken to prove that 900,000 Jews were killed, yet you believe with "reasonable doubt" that they were?? Even though you've just admitted to having no physical evidence to support your claims - presumably only "survivor testimony" which to you puts the question "out of reasonable doubt" , this is LAUGHABLE. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously? If I were a police man, who arrived at an alleged crime scene where 10 people had been murdered, and nobody could show me any evidence, and all I had was testimony, there would be no case and it certainly wouldn't be "beyond reasonable doubt".

You're trying to hide behind the idea that there's not 100% confidence behind anything in history, and I agree, but this argument does not apply when you do not even have the most basic evidence to support your historical claims. And such serious ones at that.

Asking for physical proof of an atrocity you claimed occurred against millions of people is not an empty question, nor is it a matter of "begging" the question; it is about asking for the most basic standard of evidence in support of something you claimed to have occurred. Which you evidently admitted you cannot prove, thus you cannot believe in the narrative you're pushing unless based on blind faith alone.

It is not the fault of the revisionists that we ask the most relevant questions, pertinent to the assertions that you made, but cannot prove. The problem lies with you alone.

If you were to ask me, or any other revisionist, we would tell you that the proof for any alleged Holocaust, let alone Germany atrocity, is not even close to the realm of reasonable doubt. And what does that mean? It means the most basic physical evidence does not exist to prove the systematic order, killing, and disposal operations you claim are central to the Holocaust can be proven to exist. YOU cannot even prove that Hitler had anything to do with it! The orthodoxy has failed to link the most important man in the German Reich with the Holocaust, yet it is he, Adolf Hitler, who is blamed for it and presumed among everyone you will ever meet, to have had a key guiding hand in the affair.

Discussing "reasonable doubt" in relation to the veracity of the Holocaust with you - would be like debating whether extra-terrestrials exist "beyond reasonable doubt" with a ufologist.

[EtienneSC]

[.....] nothing is known in history with 100% co fodence so the question is empty. The answer always has to be “no”. And that is not an interesting or significant answer, it is just the answer the begged questions requires.

An interesting question would be do you think it is proven beyond reasonable doubt? And then you could have an interesting discussion about what reasonable doubt means. But you don’t want to discuss that sort of thing.

That would indeed be an interesting discussion. I would suggest that raising doubts is rarely or never unreasonable in principle, but only becomes reasonable in a practical sense in particular situations, e.g. where witnesses have proven unreliable, or significant claims have been made and later withdrawn, or where war propaganda has been shown to be at work.

One for a separate thread?

[borjastick]

Wherever we see claims of mass murder of jews in any part of the German occupied territories that could be part of the claimed holocaust if they had proof be it film or photographs we would have seem it plastered everywhere. The simple comparison is the Katyn Forest investigation which was well documented because it was designed to prove that the Germans were nasty bastards who had liquidated thousands of Polish military. That turned out not to be the case because it was the Russians what did it...

So if you extrapolate that documentary evidence across the divide to the holocaust it is fair and reasonable to expect similar proof and photos/excavation etc. But it never happened so they cannot show it. If they had the proof it would be everywhere. Simples.

[Clay]

You're trying to hide behind the idea that there's not 100% confidence behind anything in history, and I agree

HMSendeavour, I am willing to bet you that I can prove - with 100% certainty - that Lyndon Johnson followed John Kennedy as president of the United States.

How much would you like to bet?

[Clay]

nothing is known in history with 100% co fodence

This is about science NFrNJ.

I would like to remind everyone following this thread what NFrNJ claimed in another thread:

archaeologists are devoted to discovery and publication of the truth

There is a sub field in archaeology called "holocaust archaeology" and there have been numerous allegations of archaeological and forensic investigations of Treblinka II over the years. To date, all allegations that I am aware of the alleged discovery of mass graves at said camp have not been substantiated.

I think it's time for NFrNJ to put his big-boy pants on, cease his sophomoric talmudic "arguments" and substantiate his as yet unsubstantiated beliefs.

You can start here NFrNJ:

https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=13705&p=100193#p100177

[Otium]

You're trying to hide behind the idea that there's not 100% confidence behind anything in history, and I agree

HMSendeavour, I am willing to bet you that I can prove - with 100% certainty - that Lyndon Johnson followed John Kennedy as president of the United States.

How much would you like to bet?

There's no need to be obtuse. Do you really need this explained to you?

The confidence behind history is not the outcomes you can prove or disprove. It is the mechanisms by which events occur that lacks 100% confidence. You can point to a variety of variables about what causes something to occur, or someone to do something, or about what inspired a great historical personality. You can speculate about motives, you can write whatever narratives you like to an extent. But as history it all relies on multiple layers of evidence that needs to be interpreted and placed into context so we can understand history and the events that occurred. This lacks 100% confidence because there's never really a 100% consensus on anything. Even the Holocaust, which is widely believed, still does not have a 100% consensus, as those of us here clearly illustrate.

It is, for example, 100% a fact that Hitler became the German Chancellor in 1933, but the issue of how much power Hitler truly enjoyed and could, or would exercise, has never been decided with 100% confidence. In the same way people argue about what Hitler's goals were, they can never know with 100% confidence. This goes for all historical personalities to some degree or another. You must keep in mind that history is the collective consciousness of billions of individuals who all had their own interpretations, and were subject to the same human condition as the rest of us. Putting together anything with 100% confidence out of a mixed bag like that is going to be nearly impossible as the viewpoints one can have are endless, and the ability for human beings to speculate, postulate, argue and misinform is infinite.

The things we all agree with, like that Hitler, Napoleon, or Stalin existed, is not an important question, it's simply a fact nobody can deny. However, when you come to the question of whether someone like Jesus or Mohammad was real, then you get people arguing day and night because it is always the questions we cannot answer with 100% confidence that are important.

[Clay]

You're trying to hide behind the idea that there's not 100% confidence behind anything in history, and I agree

HMSendeavour, I am willing to bet you that I can prove - with 100% certainty - that Lyndon Johnson followed John Kennedy as president of the United States.

How much would you like to bet?

There's no need to be obtuse. Do you really need this explained to you?

The confidence behind history is not the outcomes you can prove or disprove. It is the mechanisms by which events occur that lacks 100% confidence. You can point to a variety of variables about what causes something to occur, or someone to do something, or about what inspired a great historical personality. You can speculate about motives, you can write whatever narratives you like to an extent. But as history it all relies on multiple layers of evidence that needs to be interpreted and placed into context so we can understand history and the events that occurred. This lacks 100% confidence because there's never really a 100% consensus on anything. Even the Holocaust, which is widely believed, still does not have a 100% consensus, as those of us here clearly illustrate.

It is, for example, 100% a fact that Hitler became the German Chancellor in 1933, but the issue of how much power Hitler truly enjoyed and could, or would exercise, has never been decided with 100% confidence. In the same way people argue about what Hitler's goals were, they can never know with 100% confidence. This goes for all historical personalities to some degree or another. You must keep in mind that history is the collective consciousness of billions of individuals who all had their own interpretations, and were subject to the same human condition as the rest of us. Putting together anything with 100% confidence out of a mixed bag like that is going to be nearly impossible as the viewpoints one can have are endless, and the ability for human beings to speculate, postulate, argue and misinform is infinite.

The things we all agree with, like that Hitler, Napoleon, or Stalin existed, is not an important question, it's simply a fact nobody can deny. However, when you come to the question of whether someone like Jesus or Mohammad was real, then you get people arguing day and night because it is always the questions we cannot answer with 100% confidence that are important.

How obtuse can you get?

This is about science - not about history.

Do you really need this explained to you?

HMSendeavour:

there's not 100% confidence behind anything in history... The confidence behind history is not the outcomes you can prove or disprove... there's never really a 100% consensus on anything.

Again:

HMSendeavour, I am willing to bet you that I can prove - with 100% certainty - that Lyndon Johnson followed John Kennedy as president of the United States.

How much would you like to bet?

[Otium]

This is about science - not about history.

Do you really need this explained to you?

And yet we were talking about the mechanisms of history, not of science and the scientific methods to prove an alleged Holocaust figure. The comment was about the general certainty of history.

You have wrongly misconstrued a comment about the generality of history, with a comment seemingly about the uncertainty of science, and nobody here was talking about science being uncertain, which of course it very much can be, not everything is conclusive, even among scientists. But in this case, finding pits of human remains or not is a 100% true, if they are found, and if they're not found, then they do not exist, which is also 100% a fact.

In any case, if remains were to be found or not it would still be a historical question besides the scientific certainty of having found or not found human remains. If remains were found, the question would be about who they belonged to, how they got there - if it was natural causes or apart of the alleged Holocaust. None of these questions could be easily answered by just digging up remains from out of the ground. So your assertion that this is "not about history" could not be further from the truth.

However, I do understand that the nature of this thread is about the mass graves NFrNJ alleges to exist, and whether he can answer questions, or otherwise prove why he has reasonable doubt to believe such things. So you might argue that questions around the history of whether he can prove mass graves or not is irrelevant. But considering we're talking about the Holocaust, I doubt you can simply exclude historical questions being invoked regardless.

Again:

HMSendeavour, I am willing to bet you that I can prove - with 100% certainty - that Lyndon Johnson followed John Kennedy as president of the United States.

How much would you like to bet?

I am not going to make a bet with you Clay. Your ridiculous bet is based on attributing to me a view I do not hold about history, which I have already explained to you, and you have seemingly failed to comprehend, considering this inane insistence on a bet that would prove absolutely nothing, because it is a historical fact that Lyndon Johnson was the President after JFK and I never suggested otherwise, or that it was uncertain.

If you insist again on making a bet, I will simply ignore it.