Dr Sturdy Colls' exhibition at the Wiener Library

Discuss the alleged Nazi genocide or other wartime atrocities without fear of censorship. No bullying of fellow posters is allowed at RODOH. If you can't be civil, please address the argument and not the participants. Do not use disparaging alterations of the user-names of other RODOH posters or their family members. Failure to heed warnings from Moderators will result in a 24 hour ban (or longer if necessary).
Post Reply
User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 27677
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Dr Sturdy Colls' exhibition at the Wiener Library

Post by Nessie » Thu Aug 18, 2016 5:03 pm

theblackrabbitofinlé wrote:
Nessie wrote:From the aerial photo C does not have many trees in an area you coloured the same as areas which did have many trees. I am pointing out where you made an error so as to show you are discredited in your claims.
I didn't make an error. I've explained it to you in kindergarten terms already what areas I coloured, so you can't still be misunderstanding something so simple; you're choosing to lie about my images.
You coloured in an area with no trees the same colour as areas with trees.
theblackrabbitofinlé wrote:
Nessie wrote:The same tactic you use to try and discredit others such as C S-C. For example when you commented on her labelling a photo as the gas chamber at Majdanek because it was taken from the shower room and showed the doorway leading to the gas chamber.
Even if you weren't lying and I had made an error, this would still be a false equivalency. CSC labelled a shower as "gas chambers"; if a revisionist/denier made that error anti-deniers would, rightfully, point out the mistake as indicative of their shallow knowledge.
You also make minor errors which means you are discredited. She labelled part of a shower and the doorway that lead to the actual gas chamber. The shower before hand is integral to the gassing process.
theblackrabbitofinlé wrote:
Nessie wrote:I see fence poles with wire stretched between them as shown with small black horizontal lines at regular points on the poles.

Can you see the telephone wire too?

I see no wires or "small black horizontal lines at regular points on the poles"
I can. I can also see from this series of images of camp fences that posts with wire stretched between them is by far the most common fence used by the Nazis

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=conce ... 57&bih=613
theblackrabbitofinlé wrote:
Nessie wrote:You claimed I had suggested they were not fence posts, which I have not done. Strawman. Just as my made up a strawman over a telephone in the gas chamber, which had Werd calling you out for a "cheap shot". Apologise to me for your strawmen.


a. You're reluctance to quote my alleged strawman speaks volumes. I'll do it for you; this is how this "strawman" occurred:

BRoI - "I would say that there is a fence under construction in the Franz photo. It should be more apparent after viewing my recreation of the scene in sketchup"
Nessie - "A fence under construction that shows up in an aerial photo would be clear in a ground photo as close as Franz was."
BRoI - "What's you're explanation for these 5 poles if you don't accept they're fence posts?"
Nessie - "I do accept they are fence posts and that is a fence, stop making up strawmen."
BRoI - *baffled at the childishness, little did he know that it would get worse; a discussion on the poles would descend into a farcical back n' forth about spurious claims about fallacies*
How is saying "A fence under construction..." in any way suggestive of me not accepting what was being discussed was fence posts?
theblackrabbitofinlé wrote:b. The telephone reference aimed at Alex Bay—who claims that building was a gas chamber—was obviously hyperbolic. I'm well aware Bay doesn't claim there were telephones in the gas chambers. Werd's stupider than you if in addition he thinks this was aimed at you:
There are also telephone poles in the photograph. Why, Alex Bay, would the nazis need a telephone in a gas chamber?
c. You're lying about how I labelled the map, you owe me apology for that.
You coloured in an area with no trees as if it had trees. Just accept your mistake and recolour the image.
theblackrabbitofinlé wrote:
I'll let you off apologising for your spurious claims about fallacies, I'm sympathetic to your evident shortcomings [see your comment on trees not growing in 14-17 months below :lol: ]
OK.
theblackrabbitofinlé wrote:
There are horizontal black lines on each post showing where the wires are on them. They are completed fences made of wire between posts.
I'm looking at the same pic with a 1920 x 1080 resolution monitor and don't see them. What size are you using? Anything smaller, well, frankly you're seeing things and need to clean your screen.

But assuming you're right for argument's sake; what do you suppose was the point of such a tall but short fence in T2?
How high is a "tall but short" fence? It looks like this one at Majdanek;

Image

theblackrabbitofinlé wrote:
Nessie wrote:I am pointing out that the fence you have marked in green is not the same as the fence in the excavator photo.

It's hard to be certain what those objects are in either photos. In the gif I drew that "fence" as the frame of a structure under construction.
OK, so now you say it is possibly not a fence at all, further discrediting your claim the aerial and the excavator photo are of the same building.
theblackrabbitofinlé wrote:
Nessie wrote:You are making assumptions about the time line.
Yet he doesn't attempt to demonstrate how I'm supposedly do this.
This is an assumption; "Indeed, but the excavator photos was taken 14-17 months before the aerial photos, and there is clearly a fence under construction in the excavator photo which would have been completed before the the aerial photos were taken." because it is not accompanied by any evidence. You are now admitting the green line may not be a fence.

theblackrabbitofinlé wrote:
Nessie wrote:I can show trees close behind the excavator photo building and none in the areal photo. They did not grow in 14-17 months.
FFS! The aerial photo was take 14-17 months AFTER Franz took the excavator photo.
The original 1936 map shows no trees. So unless you can prove trees were then planted, they grow to the height in the Franz photo in 6 years and were then cut down so that the area again had no trees when the aerial photo was taken, you are making lots of assumptions.
theblackrabbitofinlé wrote:
Nessie wrote:I can show the fence you marked in green in the aerial photo is not the same as the one in the excavator photo.
Go on then, "show" it.
The green line butts onto another identical line which goes all the way around the building. There is nothing to account for the other line in the excavator photo. It is not as angled as the fence in the excavator photo.
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
theblackrabbitofinlé
Posts: 2094
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 3:33 pm
Contact:

Re: Dr Sturdy Colls' exhibition at the Wiener Library

Post by theblackrabbitofinlé » Thu Aug 18, 2016 9:04 pm

Nessie wrote:You coloured in an area with no trees the same colour as areas with trees.
A strawman misrepresentation.

It's hilarious how you shy away from showing my supposed misleading diagrams and the accompanying explanations, because you know full well they instantly refute your lies about them. Give it up and apologise.

For the third time:
BRoI wrote:Using the colour version of the map, I've coloured the areas marked 'Nieużytki i pastwiska' [wastelands and pastures] in blue.

We can see on the May 1944 photo that the areas marked A and B did contain many trees, despite being denoted as just wastelands and pastures in a map published eight years earlier;
viewtopic.php?p=81197#p81197
Nessie wrote:You also make minor errors which means you are discredited. She labelled part of a shower and the doorway that lead to the actual gas chamber. The shower before hand is integral to the gassing process.
A. I've never claimed her minor errors discredited CSC [eg bears at T2], although her big ones [eg her failure to account for Łukaszkiewicz's study on T1] do discredit the claimed discovery of "previously unknown mass graves" in its cemetery. Which is something even she has toned down in the WL exhibition where she claims they were just "unmarked mass graves".

B. It was the only shower for men in the entire camp; it was first and foremost a shower for showering. If it had any form of role as a charade to trick people about to be gassed, it was purely secondary as the showers were planned for the camp long before the claimed decision to gas people there.

theblackrabbitofinlé wrote:
Nessie wrote:I see no wires or "small black horizontal lines at regular points on the poles"
I can. I can also see from this series of images of camp fences that posts with wire stretched between them is by far the most common fence used by the Nazis

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=conce ... 57&bih=613
LOL @ your evidence: a google image search based on your keywords. But, yeah, wire fences are the cheapest if you just intend it for keeping people or animals in or out.

Humans could simply walk around the fence in Franz's photo, which is no more than a few dozen feet in length.

Show us the "small black horizontal lines at regular points on the poles" please.

Nessie wrote:How is saying "A fence under construction [that shows up in an aerial photo would be clear in a ground photo as close as Franz was.]" in any way suggestive of me not accepting what was being discussed was fence posts?
I never claimed it was a "fence under construction that shows up in an aerial photo". Roles reversed, you'd have complained that was a strawman! Being a reasonable person, I just asked you to clarify what you thought those posts were then, to which you started complaining about my short question being a strawman.

Nessie wrote:You coloured in an area with no trees as if it had trees. Just accept your mistake and recolour the image.

Lying idiot. Four the forth time [unlikely the last unless Nessie stops lying]:
BRoI wrote:Using the colour version of the map, I've coloured the areas marked 'Nieużytki i pastwiska' [wastelands and pastures] in blue.

We can see on the May 1944 photo that the areas marked A and B did contain many trees, despite being denoted as just wastelands and pastures in a map published eight years earlier;
viewtopic.php?p=81197#p81197
Nessie wrote:
theblackrabbitofinlé wrote:
There are horizontal black lines on each post showing where the wires are on them. They are completed fences made of wire between posts.
I'm looking at the same pic with a 1920 x 1080 resolution monitor and don't see them. What size are you using? Anything smaller, well, frankly you're seeing things and need to clean your screen.

But assuming you're right for argument's sake; what do you suppose was the point of such a tall but short fence in T2?
How high is a "tall but short" fence? It looks like this one at Majdanek[/img]
A. You dodged telling us about your monitor which enables you to see things not visible on my pretty decent monitor.

B. Nice misrepresentation. Tall, compared to the surrounding structures [certainly taller than the Majdanek fence]; short, because its only a few dozen feet in length

theblackrabbitofinlé wrote:
Nessie wrote:It's hard to be certain what those objects are in either photos. In the gif I drew that "fence" as the frame of a structure under construction.
OK, so now you say it is possibly not a fence at all, further discrediting your claim the aerial and the excavator photo are of the same building.

Nope, because I never made the case for that bit being "a fence", I merely drew a green line on it to indicate the same object in both photos.

Nessie wrote:This is an assumption; "Indeed, but the excavator photos was taken 14-17 months before the aerial photos, and there is clearly a fence under construction in the excavator photo which would have been completed before the the aerial photos were taken." because it is not accompanied by any evidence. You are now admitting the green line may not be a fence.
A. It's "an assumption" to think a bit of fencing can be finished in 14 months! :lol: Christ, you must be the worst DIYer.

B. I never claimed the green line was "a fence"

Nessie wrote:
theblackrabbitofinlé wrote:
Nessie wrote:I can show trees close behind the excavator photo building and none in the areal photo. They did not grow in 14-17 months.
FFS! The aerial photo was take 14-17 months AFTER Franz took the excavator photo.
The original 1936 map shows no trees. So unless you can prove trees were then planted, they grow to the height in the Franz photo in 6 years and were then cut down so that the area again had no trees when the aerial photo was taken, you are making lots of assumptions.
A. You dodged admitting you confused which photo was taken when :lol:

B. Individual tress are not marked on maps, you bozo. As you're well aware, there are a considerable number of trees in the 1944 photo that fall in areas marked "wastelands and pastures" in the 1936 map. So, no I don't have to prove anything about tree growth.

C. LOL @ you asking me to prove trees were cut down at Treblinka during the the German occupation

Nessie wrote:
theblackrabbitofinlé wrote:
Nessie wrote:I can show the fence you marked in green in the aerial photo is not the same as the one in the excavator photo.
Go on then, "show" it.
The green line butts onto another identical line which goes all the way around the building. There is nothing to account for the other line in the excavator photo. It is not as angled as the fence in the excavator photo.
It might be a gate, which would explain why it's at an angle in the aerial photo but not in Franz photo.

The fenced area was presumably to secure the excavators in over night.
We just wish to point out to the court that is not a signed sworn statement of Dr. Bender but merely a translation of an alleged or purported statement of Dr. Bender, the original of which, like many other things, is not to be found today.
- Defence counsel, Dachau trial, 7 August 1947

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 27677
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Dr Sturdy Colls' exhibition at the Wiener Library

Post by Nessie » Thu Aug 18, 2016 9:37 pm

Nothing of which proves the Franz excavator photo is of the building next to the quarry shown in the aerial photo. I will pick out a few bits of nonsense by you;
BRoI wrote:Humans could simply walk around the fence in Franz's photo, which is no more than a few dozen feet in length.

Show us the "small black horizontal lines at regular points on the poles" please.
Image

Your eye sight is very questionable. The fence disappears from view behind the excavator. The post next to the building (to the left of the post marked one has the clearest sign of darker shading from wires around it.
BRoI wrote:Being a reasonable person, I just asked you to clarify what you thought those posts were..
You said "...if you don't accept they're fence posts?" Nowhere had I suggested anything else. I had repeatedly been referring to fences. You were just taking another "cheap shot" as with the comment about a telephone in the gas chamber.
BRoI wrote:Nope, because I never made the case for that bit being "a fence", I merely drew a green line on it to indicate the same object in both photos.
Since one object is a fence and you say it is the same object in both photos, that means you did make a case that the green line was a fence.
BRoI wrote:We can see on the May 1944 photo that the areas marked A and B did contain many trees, despite being denoted as just wastelands and pastures in a map published eight years earlier; we of course have no way of knowing how much earlier than 1936 the cartographers actually surveyed this region.
This means that the area marked C could also have had many trees prior to the nazis moving in..
As you can see from the increased view .....

Image

...the most mature trees are around TII. Just behind some buildings, just like the excavator photo. C has nothing, B mostly nothing and A smaller trees at best. Furthermore, at TII next to the buildings and trees is a very flat, even layer of lighter material, just like the sand from the quarry.
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
theblackrabbitofinlé
Posts: 2094
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 3:33 pm
Contact:

Re: Dr Sturdy Colls' exhibition at the Wiener Library

Post by theblackrabbitofinlé » Thu Aug 18, 2016 11:23 pm

Nessie wrote:Nothing of which proves the Franz excavator photo is of the building next to the quarry shown in the aerial photo. I will pick out a few bits of nonsense by you;
And I will pick out the numerous bit of nonsense from yourself.
Your eye sight is very questionable. The fence disappears from view behind the excavator. The post next to the building (to the left of the post marked one has the clearest sign of darker shading from wires around it.
A. Silly Nessie, we're not viewing something in real life, we're all looking at it on computer monitors which can vary vastly in quality. Mine's a fairly decent one, you've failed to disclose what you're looking at it on.

B. That post isn't even part of the fence, it's part of the thing [poss. gate/ frame of structure] next to the building; look how much shorter that post is compared to the 5 visible fence posts that are in a line.

Nessie wrote:
BRoI wrote:Being a reasonable person, I just asked you to clarify what you thought those posts were..
You said "...if you don't accept they're fence posts?" Nowhere had I suggested anything else. I had repeatedly been referring to fences. You were just taking another "cheap shot" as with the comment about a telephone in the gas chamber.
A. You had not mentioned those fences post previously, you'd been referring to the fence on the aerial photo or the "fence"/structure I marked in green.

B. It was not a "cheap shot" but a genuine question. When I do hyperbole on the internet I make it obvious.

Nessie wrote:Since one object is a fence and you say it is the same object in both photos, that means you did make a case that the green line was a fence.
A. Begging the question fallacy. Where did you prove the thing I marked green on the aerial photo is "a fence"?

B. Non sequitur. I do think they might be the same object, but that doesn't mean I made the case [past tense] that it was a fence!

C. Strawman. I've never said let alone made the case that it was a fence.

Three fallacies in one sentence. Congratulations Nessie, that's some impressive stupids. :lol:

Nessie wrote:
BRoI wrote:We can see on the May 1944 photo that the areas marked A and B did contain many trees, despite being denoted as just wastelands and pastures in a map published eight years earlier; we of course have no way of knowing how much earlier than 1936 the cartographers actually surveyed this region.
This means that the area marked C could also have had many trees prior to the nazis moving in..
As you can see from the increased view .....

...the most mature trees are around TII. Just behind some buildings, just like the excavator photo. C has nothing, B mostly nothing and A smaller trees at best. Furthermore, at TII next to the buildings and trees is a very flat, even layer of lighter material, just like the sand from the quarry.
A. You finally stopped lying about this image. When do I get my apology for your FOUR lies about it?

B. The image always had an increased view, you just had to click on it. :roll:

C. Aside from that I don't see why you posted this comment, you're stating obvious observations that I wouldn't disagree with. You didn't even address my quoted text let alone refute anything.
We just wish to point out to the court that is not a signed sworn statement of Dr. Bender but merely a translation of an alleged or purported statement of Dr. Bender, the original of which, like many other things, is not to be found today.
- Defence counsel, Dachau trial, 7 August 1947

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 27677
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Dr Sturdy Colls' exhibition at the Wiener Library

Post by Nessie » Sat Aug 20, 2016 1:18 pm

theblackrabbitofinlé wrote:
Nessie wrote:Nothing of which proves the Franz excavator photo is of the building next to the quarry shown in the aerial photo. I will pick out a few bits of nonsense by you;
And I will pick out the numerous bit of nonsense from yourself.
Your eye sight is very questionable. The fence disappears from view behind the excavator. The post next to the building (to the left of the post marked one has the clearest sign of darker shading from wires around it.
A. Silly Nessie, we're not viewing something in real life, we're all looking at it on computer monitors which can vary vastly in quality. Mine's a fairly decent one, you've failed to disclose what you're looking at it on.
A Toshiba Satellite laptop.
theblackrabbitofinlé wrote:B. That post isn't even part of the fence, it's part of the thing [poss. gate/ frame of structure] next to the building; look how much shorter that post is compared to the 5 visible fence posts that are in a line.

Nessie wrote:
BRoI wrote:Being a reasonable person, I just asked you to clarify what you thought those posts were..
You said "...if you don't accept they're fence posts?" Nowhere had I suggested anything else. I had repeatedly been referring to fences. You were just taking another "cheap shot" as with the comment about a telephone in the gas chamber.
A. You had not mentioned those fences post previously, you'd been referring to the fence on the aerial photo or the "fence"/structure I marked in green.
Look at what you have marked in green -

Image

You did that to suggest they are the same thing.
theblackrabbitofinlé wrote:B. It was not a "cheap shot" but a genuine question. When I do hyperbole on the internet I make it obvious.
Your "genuine" question was that I think a gas chamber had a phone in it. Even Werd thinks that was a cheap shot and you owe me an apology.
theblackrabbitofinlé wrote:
Nessie wrote:Since one object is a fence and you say it is the same object in both photos, that means you did make a case that the green line was a fence.
A. Begging the question fallacy. Where did you prove the thing I marked green on the aerial photo is "a fence"?

B. Non sequitur. I do think they might be the same object, but that doesn't mean I made the case [past tense] that it was a fence!

C. Strawman. I've never said let alone made the case that it was a fence.

Three fallacies in one sentence. Congratulations Nessie, that's some impressive stupids. :lol:
So why mark both in green? You have also marked a building in red and superimposed an excavator to show they are one and the same place, So your claim is that the line in the aerial photo is the fence in the excavator photo.
theblackrabbitofinlé wrote:
Nessie wrote:
BRoI wrote:We can see on the May 1944 photo that the areas marked A and B did contain many trees, despite being denoted as just wastelands and pastures in a map published eight years earlier; we of course have no way of knowing how much earlier than 1936 the cartographers actually surveyed this region.
This means that the area marked C could also have had many trees prior to the nazis moving in..
As you can see from the increased view .....

...the most mature trees are around TII. Just behind some buildings, just like the excavator photo. C has nothing, B mostly nothing and A smaller trees at best. Furthermore, at TII next to the buildings and trees is a very flat, even layer of lighter material, just like the sand from the quarry.
A. You finally stopped lying about this image. When do I get my apology for your FOUR lies about it?

B. The image always had an increased view, you just had to click on it. :roll:

C. Aside from that I don't see why you posted this comment, you're stating obvious observations that I wouldn't disagree with. You didn't even address my quoted text let alone refute anything.
Stop marking different photos with the same colour if you do not think you are marking the same thing. You owe me an apology for trying to be deceitful with various maps and images as you try and claim the excavator photo and the aerial photo of the building at the quarry are of the same place
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
theblackrabbitofinlé
Posts: 2094
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 3:33 pm
Contact:

Re: Dr Sturdy Colls' exhibition at the Wiener Library

Post by theblackrabbitofinlé » Tue Aug 23, 2016 9:51 pm

Nessie wrote:A Toshiba Satellite laptop.
Which model?

Nessie wrote:Look at what you have marked in green -
[...]
You did that to suggest they are the same thing.

Yes I did.

Nessie wrote:Your "genuine" question was that I think a gas chamber had a phone in it. Even Werd thinks that was a cheap shot and you owe me an apology.

Quote me asking you that, without ellipsis, and link to the post so anyone can view the original and confirm for themselves the quote's authentic and you haven't quote-mined or misrepresented it.

If you can do precisely that I will apologise. But you won't be able to because I never ask you that. You tedious liar.

Nessie wrote:So why mark both in green?

You dodged explaining your sentence containing three [surely a record] different fallacies.

You already know why I marked both those objects green, you say so above.

Nessie wrote:You have also marked a building in red and superimposed an excavator to show they are one and the same place,

Indeed, that's exactly what I did.

Nessie wrote:So your claim is that the line in the aerial photo is the fence in the excavator photo.

Not it's not. What I marked in green is the suspected wooden frame/gate/fence. I've clearly and consistently stated that I'm not sure what it is.

Here I've marked the fence posts [completed fence in aerial photo] in blue, so even a lying idiot should no longer doubt what was meant:

Image

Nessie wrote:Stop marking different photos with the same colour if you do not think you are marking the same thing. You owe me an apology for trying to be deceitful with various maps and images as you try and claim the excavator photo and the aerial photo of the building at the quarry are of the same place
All your accusations about my alleged deceitfulness have been exposed as just your personal inability to understand clearly marked images with accompanying written explanations. Stop re-posting my images without their accompanying explanations.

Apologise for your errors, and apologise for your lie about "Your "genuine" question was that I think a gas chamber had a phone in it"
We just wish to point out to the court that is not a signed sworn statement of Dr. Bender but merely a translation of an alleged or purported statement of Dr. Bender, the original of which, like many other things, is not to be found today.
- Defence counsel, Dachau trial, 7 August 1947

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 27677
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Dr Sturdy Colls' exhibition at the Wiener Library

Post by Nessie » Wed Aug 24, 2016 11:11 am

theblackrabbitofinlé wrote:
Nessie wrote:A Toshiba Satellite laptop.
Which model?
The L50.
theblackrabbitofinlé wrote:
Nessie wrote:Look at what you have marked in green -
[...]
You did that to suggest they are the same thing.

Yes I did.
Good.

Image
theblackrabbitofinlé wrote:
Nessie wrote:Your "genuine" question was that I think a gas chamber had a phone in it. Even Werd thinks that was a cheap shot and you owe me an apology.

Quote me asking you that, without ellipsis, and link to the post so anyone can view the original and confirm for themselves the quote's authentic and you haven't quote-mined or misrepresented it.

If you can do precisely that I will apologise. But you won't be able to because I never ask you that. You tedious liar.
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2618&start=30#p81274

"Why, Alex Bay, would the nazis need a telephone in a gas chamber?"

Werd's response; "That was a cheap shot. Nessie doesn't believe there were phones in a gas chamber or that there needed to be."
theblackrabbitofinlé wrote:
Nessie wrote:So why mark both in green?

You dodged explaining your sentence containing three [surely a record] different fallacies.

You already know why I marked both those objects green, you say so above.

Nessie wrote:You have also marked a building in red and superimposed an excavator to show they are one and the same place,

Indeed, that's exactly what I did.

Nessie wrote:So your claim is that the line in the aerial photo is the fence in the excavator photo.

Not it's not. What I marked in green is the suspected wooden frame/gate/fence. I've clearly and consistently stated that I'm not sure what it is.

Here I've marked the fence posts [completed fence in aerial photo] in blue, so even a lying idiot should no longer doubt what was meant:

Image
So you are arguing with me over using the word fence instead of frame/gate/fence. :roll:
theblackrabbitofinlé wrote:
Nessie wrote:Stop marking different photos with the same colour if you do not think you are marking the same thing. You owe me an apology for trying to be deceitful with various maps and images as you try and claim the excavator photo and the aerial photo of the building at the quarry are of the same place
All your accusations about my alleged deceitfulness have been exposed as just your personal inability to understand clearly marked images with accompanying written explanations. Stop re-posting my images without their accompanying explanations.

Apologise for your errors, and apologise for your lie about "Your "genuine" question was that I think a gas chamber had a phone in it"
There is no way fence posts would show up as a solid line (the line you have marked in blue) in an aerial photo. You also have to explain what the solid white line that continues on from it and then turns 90 degrees is.

I am not going to apologise to you when you describe things as different or possibly different, but use the same colour to identify then. That is a deception you would go mental at and obsess about if someone like C S-C did it.
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.

Pa Gromheizer
Posts: 510
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 7:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Dr Sturdy Colls' exhibition at the Wiener Library

Post by Pa Gromheizer » Mon Aug 29, 2016 7:13 pm

Big Will wrote:So where are the alleged "900,000 Jews" that Jews say they know were buried there?
BW
If they were there, they would be whooping it up and broadcasting on media everywhere. Maybe we should be contacting media asking for their proof.
That is sure to piss off the exterminationists.

We must keep asking the 900,000 question all over the internet.

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 27677
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Dr Sturdy Colls' exhibition at the Wiener Library

Post by Nessie » Mon Aug 29, 2016 9:47 pm

Pa Gromheizer wrote:
Big Will wrote:So where are the alleged "900,000 Jews" that Jews say they know were buried there?
BW
If they were there, they would be whooping it up and broadcasting on media everywhere. Maybe we should be contacting media asking for their proof.
That is sure to piss off the exterminationists.

We must keep asking the 900,000 question all over the internet.
And people like me will give the answer, with evidence and you will ignore it and ask again :roll:
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
theblackrabbitofinlé
Posts: 2094
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 3:33 pm
Contact:

Re: Dr Sturdy Colls' exhibition at the Wiener Library

Post by theblackrabbitofinlé » Wed Aug 31, 2016 7:51 pm

Nessie wrote:[A Toshiba Satellite laptop] The L50.
With a 1366 x 768 pixel screen. So, vastly inferior to my monitor which has 49% more pixels. Therefore you claim to be able to identify wire on the posts I can't see, obviously stands on very shaky ground.

Nessie wrote:
BRoI wrote:
Nessie wrote:Your "genuine" question was that I think a gas chamber had a phone in it. Even Werd thinks that was a cheap shot and you owe me an apology.
Quote me asking you that, without ellipsis, and link to the post so anyone can view the original and confirm for themselves the quote's authentic and you haven't quote-mined or misrepresented it.

If you can do precisely that I will apologise. But you won't be able to because I never ask you that. You tedious liar.
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2618&start=30#p81274

"Why, Alex Bay, would the nazis need a telephone in a gas chamber?"

Werd's response; "That was a cheap shot. Nessie doesn't believe there were phones in a gas chamber or that there needed to be."
Is your name Alex Bay? Do you think Werd understands your name to be Alex Bay?

Why do you so frequently misrepresent what I write? Is this your idea of a debate?


Nessie wrote:
theblackrabbitofinlé wrote: Here I've marked the fence posts [completed fence in aerial photo] in blue, so even a lying idiot should no longer doubt what was meant:

Image
So you are arguing with me over using the word fence instead of frame/gate/fence. :roll:
No I'm not. And that's purely a strawman misrepresentation, because until now you haven't displayed any confusion about the fact we were discussing two different objects.

Nessie wrote:There is no way fence posts would show up as a solid line (the line you have marked in blue) in an aerial photo.

Of course, but the fence had been completed before the aerial photo was taken 14-17 months after the excavator photo.
Nessie wrote:You also have to explain what the solid white line that continues on from it and then turns 90 degrees is.
It's hardly "white", but it's the completed fence.
Nessie wrote:I am not going to apologise to you when you describe things as different or possibly different, but use the same colour to identify then. That is a deception you would go mental at and obsess about if someone like C S-C did it.
I haven't done any of that, Nessie. I can't help that you don't read my description correctly and then make false accusations [which, you never attempt to demonstrate].
We just wish to point out to the court that is not a signed sworn statement of Dr. Bender but merely a translation of an alleged or purported statement of Dr. Bender, the original of which, like many other things, is not to be found today.
- Defence counsel, Dachau trial, 7 August 1947

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 15 guests