What the witnesses said is not my opinion. Determining whether or not they used hearsay is not my opinion. Fact is multiple witnesses, indeed, EVERY witness who ever worked inside an AR camp, said that there was a chamber used to kill people. They w=vary as to how the chamber worked, depending on whether they saw it happen, or heard about how it worked. None say that people were processed and then sent back out of the camp in mass transports. None of that is my opinion.Turnagain wrote: ↑Sun May 03, 2020 12:03 pmNessie wrote:That's a good 'un, Nessie. A real hoot considering it's your opinion of what the witnesses saw that determined if the gas/vacuum chambers actually existed. After all, it's your opinion that the witnesses COULDA just missed seeing the ventilation apparatus that allowed the gas vacuum chambers to operate. Bomba claimed to have worked inside the gas/vacuum chamber cutting the women's hair but it's your opinion that he COULDA lied and didn't cut any hair inside the gas chamber or see the Germans suffocate any Jews with a vacuum. Of course when it's your opinion of what the witnesses claimed then that becomes fact. You betcha', Nessie, throw in a few "WHAT IFS" and "COULDA WOUlDA's" and Bobs your uncle.Trying to determine what happened based on your opinion of the evidence is unreliable. A far more reliable method is to look for what is corroborated by multiple sources of evidence and what can be eliminated due to a lack of evidence.
Denier attempts to make it appear that gassings could not have worked by their interpretation of what only some witnesses said is not how to evidence what happened.
Berg had two ways to dispute the evidence for gassings. The use of diesel, which is explained by hearsay and the colour of bodies, which he got wrong as he misinterpreted the medical evidence. He sounded convincing enough that he fooled himself and other deniers.
Your ways of disputing the evidence are so stupid that no other denier uses them!