- 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.
Would you like to financially contribute to the upkeep of RODOH, kindly contact Scott Smith. All contributions are welcome!
Aryan Scholar wrote:There is nothing else rather than laugh at such imbecility.been-there wrote: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.Aryan Scholar wrote: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.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.
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".
Aryan Scholar wrote:That is the most stupid answer I ever read from Nessie.Nessie wrote:Geology. http://bio-geo-terms.blogspot.co.uk/2007/01/strata.htmlAryan Scholar wrote:In accordance with what?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?
Time travel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_travelAryan Scholar wrote: Where is the evidence showing that is impossible to occur?
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.
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:Well, it seems that you cannot really grasp that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, can you?Nessie wrote: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: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.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.
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.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.
This statement is incorrect. No mass grave found does not corroborate any witness testimony.Nessie wrote:
Which is correct and corroborates what the witnesses say happened.
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:You are so stupid you cannot even use the keyboard or the mouse to scroll down a list returning 264000 results.Nessie wrote:No, it returns news about the Canadian professor and the storm he has kicked up. That's it.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
It's called "Granular Convection". Ask any farmer who has to clear field stones from his pastures every year.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 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.
Such as.......??????Aryan Scholar wrote:Most of it unreliable secondary sources.Nessie wrote:I do post evidence. So does Hans and DP. Lots of it. Way more than any denialist.
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.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.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot] and 13 guests