Consistency and standards in evidencing.

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).

Moderators: Budu Svanidze, Joe Future

Post Reply
User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 23096
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Consistency and standards in evidencing.

Post by Nessie » Fri Nov 04, 2016 12:53 pm

I would like to suggest there is more consistency and higher standards in evidencing. That would mean;

- anyone who makes a claim should evidence it. That includes claiming an event did not take place.
- evidence can be either primary or secondary.
- anyone who demands primary evidence must then only produce primary evidence for their claims.
- repeated requests ad naseam from the same person to the same person for evidence all ready provided can be ignored.
- a claim evidence has already been provided can be challenged.
- requests from someone new to the debate should be provided.
- the evidence should include a link and either a quote, page number, you tube video time or similar.
- not having evidence is different from having evidence that is disputed. Disputed evidence is still evidence. Only having no evidence is no evidence.
- logic is not evidence.
- arguments using non sequiturs or other fallacies are not evidence.
- evidence is witness testimony, admissions, documents, photos, archaeology, forensics or other material object.

A failure to evidence a claim as above means that person's claim can be rejected.
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.

rollo the ganger
Posts: 5287
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 11:34 pm
Contact:

Re: Consistency and standards in evidencing.

Post by rollo the ganger » Fri Nov 04, 2016 1:39 pm

You can post any "evidence" of the Holocaust you want Nessie. A rock. A fossil sharks tooth... ANYTHING!

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 23096
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Consistency and standards in evidencing.

Post by Nessie » Fri Nov 04, 2016 1:53 pm

I do post evidence. So does Hans and DP. Lots of it. Way more than any denialist.
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.

Aryan Scholar
Posts: 4649
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2016 3:56 pm
Contact:

Re: Consistency and standards in evidencing.

Post by Aryan Scholar » Fri Nov 04, 2016 1:59 pm

Nessie wrote:I do post evidence. So does Hans and DP. Lots of it. Way more than any denialist.
Most of it unreliable secondary sources.

Aryan Scholar
Posts: 4649
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2016 3:56 pm
Contact:

Re: Consistency and standards in evidencing.

Post by Aryan Scholar » Fri Nov 04, 2016 2:00 pm

Aryan Scholar wrote:
been-there wrote:
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Not the actual weapon. I want to see the actual weapon. You would not accept a knife being shown in court that was acknowledged as not the knife used in an attack.
How the actual footage of the weapon being used is not "see the actual weapon"? I presented you the footage of the actual weapon being used.
Yeah, but that's not enough for Nessie. Don't you understand yet! You have to show him 'irrefutable EVIDENCE'! Not just film — filmed by the murders, acknowleged by everyone including the murderers to be actual film — of the actual weapon, actually in use, actually attacking the murdered people. :lol:
There is nothing else rather than laugh at such imbecility.

Nessie ask to evidence the weapon used to destroy Dresden and exterminate the civilians.

Actual images and footage made from the OWN weapon used to destroy Dresden and exterminate the civilians are presented.

Then Nessie claims that a "film in the dark is not seeing the actual weapon".

:roll:
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Nessie wrote:
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Nessie wrote:There is no natural process whereby a fossil can rise up through the ground to end up near the surface, above building foundations which show the original ground level.

Why do you spend so much time examining the evidence of a sharks tooth fossil and so little time examining the evidence of the role of TII and what happened to those who arrived there?
In accordance with what?
Geology. http://bio-geo-terms.blogspot.co.uk/2007/01/strata.html
Aryan Scholar wrote: Where is the evidence showing that is impossible to occur?
Time travel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_travel

Gravity. http://www.popsci.com/whats-so-importan ... onal-waves

An ancient fossil appearing in a strata above a much younger strata has either travelled through time of gone against gravity. Stop being an idiot.
That is the most stupid answer I ever read from Nessie.

:lol:

Nessie says a shark teeth could not be where it was found because:

- Layers of sedimentary rock/soil
- Time travel
- Gravitational waves

Although none of the above is evidence demonstrating a shark teeth should not be where it was found, Nessie believe it is.

If there is something Nessie had demonstrated is that he is just an imbecile and have no idea of what he is talking about.
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Nessie wrote:
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Nessie wrote:I have clearly shown you with two simple examples where tests have been run and confirmed nothing is present. If someone does not have cancerous cells they do not have cancer. If a search is made for a mass grave using appropriate tools and no grave is found, there is no grave.
You did not show me anything. You made two stupid questions which has been answered and followed by an article explaining why absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
There are tests that can be done in many fields which can show something is not present. A jeweller can test a metal and determine it is not gold.
Aryan Scholar wrote: That demonstrate why no mass grave found is not evidence corroborating any witness testimonies. It is necessary collect more evidence to corroborate any witness testimonies.
Nessie wrote:
Which is correct and corroborates what the witnesses say happened.
This statement is incorrect. No mass grave found does not corroborate any witness testimony.
Yes it does. The witnesses say the original mass graves full of bodies were destroyed and the evidence is that no mass graves full of bodies are there anymore.
Well, it seems that you cannot really grasp that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, can you?

If someone claims that a piece of metal is gold, and then a scientific test shows the piece of metal to be gold, then evidence was produced to determine the absence of gold. It was the scientific test which produced the evidence showing the metal is not gold, not the absence of evidence.

Can you grasp this? ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE! The jeweler had to produce evidence to determine there was no gold, he did not used the ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE to determine there was no gold.
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Nessie wrote:
Aryan Scholar wrote:......

A single search for "Holocaust university" news returns evidence people have no academic freedom to discuss the Holocaust outside the enforced narrative:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=holoc ... 20&dpr=0.9
No, it returns news about the Canadian professor and the storm he has kicked up. That's it.
You are so stupid you cannot even use the keyboard or the mouse to scroll down a list returning 264000 results.

rollo the ganger
Posts: 5287
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 11:34 pm
Contact:

Re: Consistency and standards in evidencing.

Post by rollo the ganger » Fri Nov 04, 2016 2:22 pm

So Nessie, what you're saying is that little boy DID ride his tricycle to the Moon! No one can prove he didn't.

rollo the ganger
Posts: 5287
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 11:34 pm
Contact:

Re: Consistency and standards in evidencing.

Post by rollo the ganger » Fri Nov 04, 2016 2:56 pm

Nessie wrote:There is no natural process whereby a fossil can rise up through the ground to end up near the surface, above building foundations which show the original ground level.
It's called "Granular Convection". Ask any farmer who has to clear field stones from his pastures every year.

It's understandable that Nessie, as ignorant as he is, would have never heard of this phenomena but for the CSC archaeological team to have never heard or not to have related that phenomena to the presence of a fossil shark tooth on the surface is ASTOUNDING!!!

No, they knew but like the "Star of David" they thought they could get by with it.

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 23096
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Consistency and standards in evidencing.

Post by Nessie » Fri Nov 04, 2016 3:35 pm

Aryan Scholar wrote:
Nessie wrote:I do post evidence. So does Hans and DP. Lots of it. Way more than any denialist.
Most of it unreliable secondary sources.
Such as.......??????
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.

rollo the ganger
Posts: 5287
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 11:34 pm
Contact:

Re: Consistency and standards in evidencing.

Post by rollo the ganger » Fri Nov 04, 2016 3:38 pm

Nessie wrote:Such as.......??????
It would be easier to ask what primary evidence you've ever presented... MUCH easier!!!

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 23096
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Consistency and standards in evidencing.

Post by Nessie » Fri Nov 04, 2016 3:42 pm

rollo the ganger wrote:So Nessie, what you're saying is that little boy DID ride his tricycle to the Moon! No one can prove he didn't.
I am saying there is evidence of mass gassing, burial, exhumation, cremation and reburial. There is not evidence of TII being a transit camp which transited c750,000 elsewhere.
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.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 9 guests