So-called Bone Excavation

[DominO123]

I have been reading the studies from Turkish said specialist of bones excavated that would supposedly prove that it was the Armenians that commited a genocide against the Turks.

 

Some interesting conclusions I came with, I will not post all my study and conclusions, I am keeping them for another thing. But here just one example, and it is the excavation in Cavusoglu.

 

Dr. Metin Ozbek did the study, from the excavation 8-9 bodies were presented to study them.

 

He discribe how from the bones it was shown that the persons were killed by some sort of cutting tool. When I arrived to the last individual, a female that was aging from 17-19 of age. The study writes.

 

Female: She died at about the age 17 or 19. There are no signs of blows on the preserved bones of the skull. The main parts of the occipital were either broken or lost. It is impossible to state the reasons of death.

 

From all the skulls and bones studied(8-9 individuals) this was the only that the causes of death is supposedly unknown, the only that there is "missing parts." It was as well the only where the said specialist doesn't say that there has been violence involved.

 

When I arrived there on his so-called study, I said, yah OK! Let me guess, this one will be an Armenian, the rest will be Turks(I AM NOT JOCKING).

 

After more notes and more pseudoprofessionalist, the alleged specialist later write concerning the ethnicity of those victims. Read, SURPRISE, SURPRISE!!!

 

 

This result showed that four are mesocaphalic and the others are brachycephalic. We never came across with dolchocephalic group. In Anatolia Alpina race which includes both mesocephalic and brachycephalic ones, all the skeletons belonged to Alpine group to which Anatolian Turks belong. The skeleton of the female whose death age is between 17 and 19 does not belong to this group. It is in the east variation of the Dinaric race which is called Armenoid.

 

Surprised? First of all, there isen"t any bone measurement way that could separate distincly a Kurd from and Armenian, neither most of the Turks, the only real Alpines which one could refer would be some Tartar tribs, which would be highly unlikely, because of the fact that statistically speaking there isen"t any chances that the rest being only tartars or such groups.

 

Lets ignore this right now, and come to the next point. Read and laught. The last part of his conclusion.

 

These facts confirm the statements of the witnesses who live in the same area today. Thus the part of history related to Armenians has to be rewritten because the people who were massacred violently were not the Armenians but the Turks.

 

All history books must be rewritten because this professor has examined 8 bones and finally proved that the Armenians were not massacres bu Turks were.

 

Another note, in his notes he say that one of the persons was burned, 2 others had their head smashed and recieved very severe cuts. One wonder, how is it that, there is no bones missing when one get his bones smashed, or get burned, but a girl that "just die" has missing bones to conclude what happened to her.

[Armat]

Sad and pathetic.These morons never give up proving their moroness.

[Teutonic Knight]

The point is they are organized and united, gradually raising their fabrications while Armenian activities regarding the matter are declining.

Sad but true.

I even heard that some Turk is sueing France for recognizing the Genocide and the European court has accepted the lawsuit. How did the Armenian community allow this case to even achieve a green light?

[Vigil]

You should keep in mind that anyone can conduct studies or publish material,but the fact remains that if the material lacks crediability I doubt it will gain attention. The intellectualy community are not as stupid and that is the group of people that the Turkish government has to convince not the public. Edited May 31, 2004 by Vigil

[COSSACK1]

hmm, one can also conclude that a 19 year old "Armenian" girl massacred 8 turks.....hahahahahahahaha (my grandma stabbed two Turks as they stormed into her house, then she ran out through the back door and saved herself)...good job grandma...otherwise i would not be here.

 

this study is a joke....yet another example of a nation bent on continually

humiliating the survivors....Turkey

 

the good Turks know what i'm talkin about

----> ----> ---->

cossack1

[phantom]

The point is they are organized and united, gradually raising their fabrications while Armenian activities regarding the matter are declining.

Sad but true.

I even heard that some Turk is sueing France for recognizing the Genocide and the European court has accepted the lawsuit. How did the Armenian community allow this case to even achieve a green light?

TK, it is a boon to us that a freak from Turkey has sued France over Genocide recognition. It just makes denialists look even worse. Imagine the lengths they'll go to in order to deny what everyone else has accepted? I'm so happy that the European court accepted the case, because as I said in another post, there's no such thing as bad publicity when you've got truth on your side.

[vava]

there's no such thing as bad publicity when you've got truth on your side.

 

Unless of course your aim is to plant a seed of doubt where no doubt should exist. It seems to me that some of the Turkish propaganda has been largely sucessful as of late. And now they are beginning to leverage their renewed political significance. I think it is unwise to underestimate the damage they a case like this could to Armenians' credibilty (despite the truth being on our side)

[THOTH]

Yes Vava - I quite a agree - a danger - and I think to at least some degree the Turks have had some success. I can remember nearly 25 years ago - when i first came across someone who actually denied the Genocide. He basically took the Turkish line - and I was just flabbergasted. He was not an uneducated man - and was not Turkish - but basically bought in on this idea that it was war - and that the Armenians were combatants and that the Turks did what they had to do - and that it was nothing out of line - that there was no evidence that there was really any pre-meditated or even carried out genocide..etc etc...and I could not convince him otherwise (though only tired/had oppurtunity to once or twice and prior to the internet or at the time for me having many available sources etc...oh well..

 

And then recently - just a few days ago in fact - I had just finished watching the movie Ararat with some non-Armenian reletives of mine - and one actually said - based in part on the Javvat(?) Beys character's comments about Armenians looking down on Turks etc - that he thought the Turks were justified in their actions against the Armenians (and Germans concerning the Jews in WW2) because these groups (Jews & Armenians) were clannish and refused to integrate into their societies - so obviously were seditious elements who set themselves apart form teh rest - were not "with the program" and who were essentially leeching off their respective socities making the majority groups justifiably jealous! Can you believe that someone - and my own relative (by marrraige) at that - would take such a postion - and would express such after watching the movie Ararat (with me essentially in tears...)...well yes he was trying to rile me up/pick a fight...but still...that there are people who could actually hold such attitudes...believe such lies....well there are - and sometimes even the truth or having the moral right on your side does not matter - people are sometimes ready to believe any (potential) kind of justification - and Armenians need to be aware of this - and not just think because we are "right" that others will necissarily see it the same way - and even empathize even just a little....

Edited December 29, 2003 by THOTH

[THOTH]

These facts confirm the statements of the witnesses who live in the same area today. Thus the part of history related to Armenians has to be rewritten because the people who were massacred violently were not the Armenians but the Turks.

 

All history books must be rewritten because this professor has examined 8 bones and finally proved that the Armenians were not massacres bu Turks were.

Yes typical Turkish "scholarship" in this regard...don't know weather to laugh or cry...perhaps a bit of both...

[THOTH]

there's no such thing as bad publicity when you've got truth on your side.

Phantom - while I understand the point...would you say that this is/would be true concerning a campaign of assasination or the like - such as was carried out by ASALA? It is certainly something that generates soem awareness that Armenians are disgruntled and gets stories and such (maybe even a little background) into the news. And I know that what I am saying here is a bit of a stretch from your point..but food for thought eh?

[DominO123]

I do agree with Phantom here, and I think he is starting to understand the hole point. When you think like Phantom, it is because you do not fear anymore denialist claims. This I think is a sign that Phantom now master the subject enought to know that no denialist claims could hold water. This could be explained as saying: "Those who know don't fear."

 

And no, I do not think that Turkish denialism has been successful as of late, governments are not buying Turkish claims because the Turks are able to convince, they are buying them(if we can consider it that way) because it is convinient for them. Take a step which will anger Turkey, and you know that this would be a bad step, this is how denialism works.

 

Denialism tactic is similair as the "Epimenides paradox" which Armat posted some times ago.

 

It goes as follow.

 

Evidence A is forgery

Evidence A, if it were to not be forgery it won't be an evidence.

 

A is no evidence, even if it could be one, it would forgery.

 

Now, lets take the two possible scenarios.

 

Suppose that Evidence A is not a forgery.

 

Is evidence A an evidence? No, because the statment say that if it is not forgery it isen't an evidence.

 

Now, suppose that Evidence A is a forgery.

 

Evidence A is an evidence, but it is a forgery.

 

So, on both sides a pieces of evidence would be innacurate. Because if it is an evidence, it is forgery, if it is not an evidence it isen't a forgery.

 

Now, the question could be asked, why if it is a forgery it will be an evidence.

 

The answer to that, is that in order for one to analyse and conclude forgery, one should suppose that it is an evidence. This means, that just the fact the you are analysing it to prove it as forgery, you are considering it an evidence. Because, why would you try to reject something that is not an evidence?

 

 

thosefore, we are in a situation just like the Epimenides paradox, I've recently decided to read that book again, thanks to Armat.

 

If it is an evidence, it is forgery.

If it is not an evidence, it is not a forgery.

 

In both cases, what you present can not be used to support your point.

 

If one read denialist materials, one will realise that all the argumentation is centered on this paradox.

 

 

Like I said, Turkish tactics have always been this, and I will even say that as of late there is nothing really new, McFarty write his new books without even including footnotes, and only write articles... Shaws is even not to consider anymore, Halatrashoglu arguments are even more ridiculous than those of Ataov.

 

I would say that it is more the Armenian side that stopped to push on it and not the Turks that were really successful.

 

The Armenian side lack of an important arm, before, they concentrated at documentation the genocide, while the denialists were rejecting the claims and documentating their own claims... what should the Armenian side do is using the paradox against the Turkish claims and present a kind of cycled logic, which will resist to such paradoxs.

 

Here one for example. It is the Armenian population before WWI.

 

The Turks claims that there was about 1.3 million Armenians, if that would be so, statistically the Armenians could not have attacked the Ottoman like the Turks claims, because then, the total number of men that could fight was of 350,000(considering a total population of 1.3 million). Turkish claims of proportion of 1/4, would make this number to less then 100,000, separating the Armenians into the said 50,000 Armenian legion, there would be only less then 50,000 Armenian men left to sustain the claim of rebellion.

 

If on the other hand, the Armenians were more populated then those given numbers, from the Turkish own substractions, we will be forced to claim more Armenians died.

 

Here we present a Paradox full proof argument, if Armenians were fewer than it is reported they were, they could not be the threat reported, if they were more than reported, more Armenians died. So the Turks have to decide what they would accept, Armenians that were not the threat they reported, or that more Armenians died than what they claim. Now, they will have to maximise this, by adding more numbers, in the same time be careful to not raise the number of victims...

 

They do that, and they have rewriten their own histeriography, and now, you just pick their previous claims and compare them with the new ones etc...

 

Such kind of actions sound to be too technical, but this way, the Turkish claims will just destroy itself, they will destroy their own claims in order to get out of this paradox.

 

 

 

We are in a situation, that we must now directlly attack their claims, and present arguments which could not be rejected. And to do this, we do need publicity, and in this way, there could not be a bad publicity, because we will just leave the Turks show how ridiculous their claims are. The Turks making publicity, it will catch others curiosity, and when they decide to search, they must find how ridiculous it is, here is where we must target, we let the Turks with the publicity stuff, they are so good at it, and we target the response of the public, we target the ressources they will need.

Edited December 29, 2003 by Fadix

[THOTH]

Domino - I fully agree that we need to address all of the denilaist claims one by one and show them for what they are...still I think you fail to understand that the truth truth does not always prevail...that most people don't bother reading all the arguments and that media sound bites and such can often have more effect on opinion and such then substance (and I'm not just refering to opinion of those who don't matter - but Government and elected officials etc). So this sort of thing - the various denials can have effect and must be countered. In fact if you don't think that the denialisits are important - then why bother countering their denials? And I have to dtress that countering them by detailed fact is of course paramount - but not always sufficient in and of itself...

 

I do agree though - that for those in the know - the Turksigh arguments are often quite ludicorous...problem is - is that those in the know are a distinct minority....

[DominO123]

Thoth, do you know the results of the polls in the US, consering those that doubt that the Holocaust happened? I think, you do not understand that yourself. Those that don't care to read, are those same that don't care of the accurance or the non-accurance. I don't care if a dumb idiot believe or not it happened. Those that search, are whom we must target, the ones that will just buy anything the media tells them have no impact at all, because suppose that they accept the Turkish view, then what? Do you think that with what they learned of the Turkish view, their arguments will be enought to convince those that really matter?

 

The answer to this is a big NO!

 

The Turks could make a publicity or not, those that really matter will be the ones that will want to inform themselves.

 

Now, comming to the polls about the Holocaust, is the fact that 1/3 of the americans, consider that the Holocaust may have not happened have any value for those that really matter? Not at all...

 

Those Turkish publicity have many positive results, it makes those that are against denial study more the topic and learn to answer... in a civilized society anything should b open to debate, only those that are unsure of their claims are against it, this include the Holocaust or any other events in history.

 

Steve was right about this, and I was in the wrong, when he said that anyone should be free of his opinions, including in the cases of denying the Holocaust, if an Irving want to deny the Holocaust, let him deny it, if you say his arguments are wrong, go ahead prove them wrong.

 

This is how a civilised society must work, I am in a point, that I really don't care if the Turks have the permission to deny, they have the permission, so as you have the permission to answer, if dumbs will buy things without bodering to search, I don't give a s.t about them, because those are not those that really matter.

Edited December 29, 2003 by Fadix

[DominO123]

I forgot something.

 

This result showed that four are mesocaphalic and the others are brachycephalic.

 

In Uras, Esat: The Armenians in History and The Armenian Question, Documentary Publications (Istanbul), 1988 p. 327, Uras writes:

 

The Armenians in Russia may be characterized as follows: Almost all of them are brachycephalic or leptocephalic, very dark, above average height, an Aissores Asian group with close ties with certain Kurdish tribes and Azerbaijani peoples.

 

Uras is known to be the father of denialism, the number one reference.

 

I have no comment here, but just made a funny constation from their own claims. hmmmm...

Edited January 5, 2004 by Fadix