Why does denial need protecting from evidencing its claims?

This board is open for all subject matters. Post information and discussion materials about open-debate and censorship on other boards (including this one) here. Memory Hole 2 is a RODOH subforum for alternate perspectives.
User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 28136
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Why does denial need protecting from evidencing its claims?

Post by Nessie »

Turnagain wrote:
Wed Mar 18, 2020 11:31 am
LOL! Nessie considers claims by alleged eyewitnesses as evidence as long as he agrees with what they say. If he doesn't agree with what they say they're a bunch of dipsticks who don't know their arse from their elbow and their testimony is nothing but "exaggerations" or "hyperbole" or just a (heh-heh) "little mistake".

Oh well, holyhoax discussion is forbidden with Nessie but I just couldn't resist sticking a pin in Nessie's "evidence" balloon. Wait for it, folks, Nessie's next challenge will be, "Where did they gooooo?". So it goes in holyhoax la-la land,
Wrong. I reject witness evidence that is clearly hyperbole or mistaken. What I do not do, is then leap to rejecting what every single witness said, even the ones that I have not read or considered. Which is what you do.

How do you justify rejecting all witness evidence, based only on what some of what some witnesses said? Explain the logic and show a rational reason for your action.
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.


Would you like to financially contribute to the upkeep of RODOH, kindly contact Scott Smith. All contributions are welcome!


Turnagain
Posts: 7281
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 11:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Why does denial need protecting from evidencing its claims?

Post by Turnagain »

Nessie wrote:
Wrong. I reject witness evidence that is clearly hyperbole or mistaken.
Oh, my aching arse! What did I just say, Nessie? You clearly reject claims made by alleged eyewitnesses with whom you disagree. Why don't you name some eyewitnesses with whom you agree? Oh, wait a minute, Nessie agrees with some of what the witnesses say and calls the parts that he doesn't like, "exaggerations", "hyperbole" or just a little "mistake". Nessie covers all of his bases in holyhoax la-la land.

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 28136
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Why does denial need protecting from evidencing its claims?

Post by Nessie »

Turnagain wrote:
Wed Mar 18, 2020 12:16 pm
Nessie wrote:
Wrong. I reject witness evidence that is clearly hyperbole or mistaken.
Oh, my aching arse! What did I just say, Nessie? You clearly reject claims made by alleged eyewitnesses with whom you disagree. Why don't you name some eyewitnesses with whom you agree? Oh, wait a minute, Nessie agrees with some of what the witnesses say and calls the parts that he doesn't like, "exaggerations", "hyperbole" or just a little "mistake". Nessie covers all of his bases in holyhoax la-la land.
You have missed the point, deliberately. You have quote mined to dodge dealing with all of what I said.

If a witness said blood burns in a mass pyre, that is clearly wrong and should be dismissed. It is not in my opinion wrong, it is physically impossible for blood to burn. That does not mean, therefore, everything that witness said, let alone what every single witness said about mass pyres is also wrong.

How do you justify rejecting all witness evidence, based only on what some of what some witnesses said? Explain the logic and show a rational reason for your action.
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

Turnagain
Posts: 7281
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 11:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Why does denial need protecting from evidencing its claims?

Post by Turnagain »

Nessie wrote:
If a witness said blood burns in a mass pyre, that is clearly wrong and should be dismissed. It is not in my opinion wrong, it is physically impossible for blood to burn. That does not mean, therefore, everything that witness said, let alone what every single witness said about mass pyres is also wrong.
Uh-huh, if a witness says that blood is flammable that's "wrong". If he says that human cadavers can be set on fire with a handful of twigs, that's OK. If a witness says that the gas chambers were hermetically sealed, the hermetically sealed part is wrong but the gas chamber portion is OK. If a witness says that the hermetically sealed gas chambers also functioned as vacuum chambers, the hermetically sealed and the vacuum parts are wrong but the gas chamber part is still OK. Ya' just gotta' be careful about what's "wrong" and what's "OK". Doesn't make any difference how much a witness lies, it's what Nessie agrees with that counts. You betcha'.

Werd
Posts: 9557
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

Re: Why does denial need protecting from evidencing its claims?

Post by Werd »

Nessie wrote:
Wed Mar 18, 2020 9:35 am
They are all examples of how deniers have dodged evidencing what happened.
Show me where all the Jews went, or I win by default. Non sequitor.
Instead, you think up ways to try to discredit the evidence for gassings
Mattogno already ripped Van Pelt to shreds and Rudolf already ripped Green, Markiewicz and other idiots who don't understand chemistry and Prussian Blue to shreds.
and then illogically and idiotically declare, therefore no one was gassed and they all left the camps.
I already told you I'm fine with agnosticism about the issue. I'm just willing to admit that the revisionists have a lot of tough questions. Especially about the Auschwitz gas chambers. Even quasi-revisionist David Cole/Stein who holds steadfast to the AR camp murder theory admitted that the revisionists won Auschwitz.
Why should I believe what you cannot evidence?
I would ask you the same thing about the phony "criminal traces" which include you and Pressac twisting documents about shower heads, gas tight doors, Vergasungskeller all out of context.
Nessie wrote:
Wed Mar 18, 2020 9:39 am
As an interested reader, why do you not quote when you link? You make a claim, you provide a link and then that link leads to a random post where the connection with your claim is not clear at all.
Image

Deja vu.
Nessie ignores plain English from a rabbi's own mouth about Israel must remain Jewish but Europe should switch to a new majority and keep taking in Muslims and Africans so that European whites become a minority in their own land.
Page 50
viewtopic.php?p=135914#p135914

Nessie then playing dumb about not knowing where other direct quotes were given to prove my point - and thus him wrong and a liar.
Page 51
viewtopic.php?p=135990#p135990
Page 53
viewtopic.php?p=135995#p135995

Nessie falsely says I hate providing links and quotes for claims I make about what people allegedly say. That's just a cover after I expose how he has ignored what was in front of him the whole time.
Page 53
viewtopic.php?p=135996#p135996
viewtopic.php?p=135998#p135998
viewtopic.php?p=136000#p136000

Nessie shifts the goal posts, distorts context and equivocates
Page 54
viewtopic.php?p=136004#p136004
viewtopic.php?p=136005#p136005

Nessie saying I didn't give links and quotes to a certain thing at a certain time when I clearly did.
Page 56
viewtopic.php?p=136034#p136034
viewtopic.php?p=136042#p136042
Page 57
viewtopic.php?p=136045#p136045
viewtopic.php?p=136005#p136005
viewtopic.php?p=136067#p136067

After moving the goal posts and having THAT meta-debate to waste time, he tried to create ANOTHER meta-debate!
Page 58
viewtopic.php?p=136099#p136099
viewtopic.php?p=136100#p136100
viewtopic.php?p=136147#p136147
viewtopic.php?p=136173#p136173
Page 59
viewtopic.php?p=136230#p136230
viewtopic.php?p=136231#p136231
Page 66
viewtopic.php?p=137552#p137552
viewtopic.php?p=137553#p137553

Nessie continues to lie about not reading something directly in front of him.
Page 67
viewtopic.php?p=137613#p137613

Now he claims he missed it because he "skims" my posts. He always has an ad hoc, or excuse for his bullshit!
Page 68
viewtopic.php?p=137637#p137637

Nessie's claims that he dug his heels in and was waiting for me to provide direct quotes, because I allegedly gave no leads or links or quotes to such things, shows to be another bold faced lie from a dishonest troll! Observe my reductio ad absurdum that direct quotes are not actually direct quotes. I.E. Nessie claims I provided none, but he did see them and I caught him dodging them. He was just lying again to frustrate the issue!

Page 72
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=2904&start=710
Page 73
viewtopic.php?p=137795#p137795
Page 74
viewtopic.php?p=137801#p137801
viewtopic.php?p=137805#p137805
Page 75
viewtopic.php?p=137832#p137832
viewtopic.php?p=137834#p137834
viewtopic.php?p=137844#p137844

Direct quotes are not actually direct quotes. Or it could be that A is A and Nessie just ignores what's in front of him or conveniently "skims" my posts and accidentally missed direct quotes every single time. LOL.
Page 81
viewtopic.php?p=138072#p138072
Page 82.
viewtopic.php?p=138080#p138080
Sorry but I'm not going to repost and requote everything all over again. That's not what this is about. It's not even about indulging you or getting you to admit all the mistakes and lies you committed. It's about tracking and evidencing the kind of trolling behaviour that earned you your spot. The interested reader will see what you are guilty of. You are not a victim and you are not innocent.
Nessie wrote:
Wed Mar 18, 2020 9:49 am
Denial has been made illegal is some countries, because of that lack of evidence. Your inability to provide evidence from witnesses, documents, physical items, forensics and other sources of what did happen and the subsequent mass departures of people on daily transports to be fed, clothed and accommodated elsewhere, is why your claims are illegal. You are spreading fake, unevidenced history.
No it's because people genuinely fear a murderous fascist regime will creep up again if revisionism is allowed to spread. People who see the validity in many of their arguments unfortunately may be swayed into ALSO THINKING that therefore Hitler was a good guy, that he was independent of the international banker conspiracy, that he wasn't a cog in the wheel (when I think he was and have argued as such, much to the anger of some revisionists on this board like k0nsl). In other words, revisionism was made illegal for a 'greater good' not because it can't withstand scrutiny. :roll:
The "big dogs" of "revisionism" have accessed archives and original sources and they have found no evidence as to what did happen.
Actually many of them have not only been refused access (as shown here), but they have found that others have been lying about the locations of certain documents in an effort to frustrate revisionists (as shown here). In an old Jurgen Graf video at 24 minutes 56 seconds, we find that documents that revisionists want to come back to later when they later return to an archive suddenly end up disappearing. So you're wrong again, jackass.
The denier claim of no gassings without leaving behind any evidence for that, is physically impossible to have happened.
What kind of evidence are you talking about that should be left behind and where would we find it? I really don't understand what you're saying. Examples please? Are you looking for documentary/paper traces of Jews leaving? Because that was likely destroyed as already explained. I mentioned this in the past, and true to style you continue to ignore it.

Re: Is Nessie Destroying RODOH? (May 2017)
Page 30
http://rodoh.info/forum/viewtopic.php?p=129412#p129412
The Russian bombing campaign made sure to destroy that kind of evidence.
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?p=82321#p82321
also mentioned here, here, here with full quotation and reproduction.

As I said before, your repeated lying and dodging is what earned you your place...way down here in rodoh's basement. You are not a victim and you are not innocent.
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?p=82321#p82321[/quote]
Last edited by Werd on Wed Mar 18, 2020 1:42 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 28136
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Why does denial need protecting from evidencing its claims?

Post by Nessie »

Turnagain wrote:
Wed Mar 18, 2020 12:55 pm
Nessie wrote:
If a witness said blood burns in a mass pyre, that is clearly wrong and should be dismissed. It is not in my opinion wrong, it is physically impossible for blood to burn. That does not mean, therefore, everything that witness said, let alone what every single witness said about mass pyres is also wrong.
Uh-huh, if a witness says that blood is flammable that's "wrong".
Yes. Under no circumstances can blood catch fire.
If he says that human cadavers can be set on fire with a handful of twigs, that's OK.
Yes. That is hyperbole. A pyre will burn when wood is set in fire underneath something that is flammable, which despite your objections, bodies are flammable. They contain fat, which burns.
If a witness says that the gas chambers were hermetically sealed, the hermetically sealed part is wrong but the gas chamber portion is OK.
No. A hermetic seal makes sense on doors and vents to stop leaking. A witness who just states that the chamber was sealed, is clearly not meaning the entire chamber was now a seal, or else, how did the gas get in?
If a witness says that the hermetically sealed gas chambers also functioned as vacuum chambers, the hermetically sealed and the vacuum parts are wrong but the gas chamber part is still OK.
No. A vacuum chamber was merely a rumour and hearsay. No witness speaks to seeing one actually function.
Ya' just gotta' be careful about what's "wrong" and what's "OK". Doesn't make any difference how much a witness lies, it's what Nessie agrees with that counts. You betcha'.
You do not understand the complexities of assessing witness evidence against what is and what is not possible or probable or what is hearsay and what is actual eye witness evidence. You have a desired outcome that you want to fit the evidence around.

You have also admitted that you cannot logically and rationally justify rejecting all the witness evidence, base only on part of what a few of the witnesses said.

It is your inability to provide a justification why this forum is now protected from open debate.
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 28136
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Why does denial need protecting from evidencing its claims?

Post by Nessie »

Werd wrote:
Wed Mar 18, 2020 1:31 pm
Nessie wrote:
Wed Mar 18, 2020 9:35 am
They are all examples of how deniers have dodged evidencing what happened.
Show me where all the Jews went, or I win by default. Non sequitor.
It is logical that if event A is evidenced and event B is not, and they are the only two events possible, then event A happened.

A - Mass gassing is evidenced.
B - Mass daily departures from the camps and kremas is not.

Neither A nor B could have happened without leaving evidence.

Why should I believe your claim when you cannot evidence it?

You have no answer for that and that is why denier run forums have to limit the debate to protect their beliefs. That is why I win, because I can evidence A and you cannot evidence B.
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

Turnagain
Posts: 7281
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 11:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Why does denial need protecting from evidencing its claims?

Post by Turnagain »

Nessie wrote:
How do you justify rejecting all witness evidence, based only on what some of what some witnesses said? Explain the logic and show a rational reason for your action.
So, if some guy tells me that after he got back from his expedition to Mars he spent a few hours relaxing in the company of a blond beauty queen before he resumed his work as a theoretical physicist I should disbelieve the part about the Mars expedition, doubt the part about the blond beauty queen but believe that he's actually a theoretical physicist. How about I just call him a lying SOB that lives in a fantasy world? How about you explain why I should believe any part of what obvious liars tell me? I'm supposed to pick the fly shit out of the pepper to come up with my very own version of what is the truth?

Sell your silly-assed notions down the street, Nessie. No takers here.

Werd
Posts: 9557
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

Re: Why does denial need protecting from evidencing its claims?

Post by Werd »

Nessie wrote:
Wed Mar 18, 2020 1:43 pm
Werd wrote:
Wed Mar 18, 2020 1:31 pm
Nessie wrote:
Wed Mar 18, 2020 9:35 am
They are all examples of how deniers have dodged evidencing what happened.
Show me where all the Jews went, or I win by default. Non sequitor.
It is logical that if event A is evidenced and event B is not, and they are the only two events possible, then event A happened.

A - Mass gassing is evidenced.
B - Mass daily departures from the camps and kremas is not.

Neither A nor B could have happened without leaving evidence.

Why should I believe your claim when you cannot evidence it?

You have no answer for that and that is why denier run forums have to limit the debate to protect their beliefs. That is why I win, because I can evidence A and you cannot evidence B.
And as usual, you still act like there is sufficient documentary and physical evidence for proof of A.

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 28136
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Why does denial need protecting from evidencing its claims?

Post by Nessie »

Werd wrote:
Wed Mar 18, 2020 1:31 pm
Nessie wrote:
Wed Mar 18, 2020 9:35 am
...The denier claim of no gassings without leaving behind any evidence for that, is physically impossible to have happened.
What kind of evidence are you talking about that should be left behind and where would we find it? I really don't understand what you're saying. Examples please? Are you looking for documentary/paper traces of Jews leaving? Because that was likely destroyed as already explained. I mentioned this in the past, and true to style you continue to ignore it.

...
I have answered you in the past. You pretend that I have not.

Documents;

I am looking for documentary evidence. Documents survive to evidence people were sent to the AR camps on mass transports. Those documents are from the places that sent the people, such as the Warsaw Ghetto and Westerbork camp. They are also from those who were part of the organisation of the transportations, such as Hofle and Ganzenmuller.

If people were sent from the AR camps to other places, then there would be records at those places to show mass arrivals. There would be records from those tasked with organising the transports. But there is nothing.

Witnesses;

I am looking for witness evidence. There are plenty of witnesses to mass arrivals at the AR camps, from people who were on the transports to those who worked at the camps, both Jewish and Nazi and railway workers.

If people had been sent on mass transports back out of the camps, there would be witnesses from those on the trains, to guards, to railway workers, to those at the camps where those people arrived. Instead, those people specifically state that any train back out of the AR camps, was only of limited selections of some adults to work.

Physical evidence;

I am looking for physical evidence of where the millions sent to the AR camps were subsequently accommodated. There is physical evidence of where they had been, such as the Warsaw Ghetto and Westerbork.

Where is the physical evidence of their accommodation after arriving at the AR camps? Those camps could not have accommodated 1.274 million people by the end of 1942.

The evidence trail from witnesses, documents and the physical evidence runs out inside the AR camps. We can track those people only to the AR camps. Then the evidence trail runs dry.

It is that lack of evidence why denial needs protecting from an open scrutiny of its claims.
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests