The flaws in denier arguments

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).
User avatar
Huntinger
Posts: 9836
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:56 am
Location: Gasthaus Waldesruh.Österreichisches Deutsch
Contact:

Re: The flaws in denier arguments

Post by Huntinger »

Nessie wrote:
Sat Apr 03, 2021 9:06 am
Instead of copying what you found on Wikipedia, how about you produce primary, verifiable evidence to back up the denier claim of millions of Jews resettled in Ostland and Ukraine.
Korherr said they did..there done and dusted.

𝕸𝖊𝖎𝖓𝖊 𝕰𝖍𝖗𝖊 𝖍𝖊𝖎ß𝖙 𝕿𝖗𝖊𝖚𝖊
Amt VI..Ausland-SD

SUPPORT RODOH!
Would you like to financially contribute to the upkeep of RODOH? Please kindly contact Scott Smith ([email protected]). Any and all contributions are welcome!


User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 32074
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: The flaws in denier arguments

Post by Nessie »

Turnagain wrote:
Sat Apr 03, 2021 10:17 am
Nessie wrote:
I don't believe your claim that the Germans could not dig big pits and build a gas chamber. They were able to build rockets and fire them at the UK.
Nessie continues to wave his magic wand of German engineering over the impossibilities claimed by the Treblinka eyewitnesses. A few "mistakes" and "exaggerations" along with a "what if" and a "coulda woulda" and Bob's your uncle.
I take physical evidence over witness evidence. Your claim that the Germans could not manage simple engineering is stupid. Your claim that witnesses should be able to describe exactly how something works is moronic. Your belief that witnesses would not make mistakes is utterly stupid.
It is a fact.
Only in holyhoax la-la land do Nessie's opinions become facts.
No, it is a fact that no historian uses your debunking methodology. No university teaches it. It is stupid, unreliable and only deniers use it.
That they were put on trial means their evidence was tested in court...
No, what it means is that you don't have any German witnesses who weren't involved in legal proceedings and under threat of imprisonment. That would be the marsupial escapades conducted by Germans under the auspices of American Jews.
Your wack job CT that Jews ran the post-war West German legal system is the sign of a demented mind. The threat of imprisonment was low, many were acquitted and those who did go to prison, served short sentences in decent conditions. There is no evidence any were coerced. It just pisses you off that ALL of the Nazis admitted gassings at the AR camps and they corroborate the Jews, the physical and circumstantial evidence :lol:
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
Huntinger
Posts: 9836
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:56 am
Location: Gasthaus Waldesruh.Österreichisches Deutsch
Contact:

Re: The flaws in denier arguments

Post by Huntinger »

Nessie wrote:
Sat Apr 03, 2021 3:03 pm
I take physical evidence over witness evidence. Your claim that the Germans could not manage simple engineering is stupid. Your claim that witnesses should be able to describe exactly how something works is moronic. Your belief that witnesses would not make mistakes is utterly stupid.
Werner von Braun built this:
Image
not this:
Image

𝕸𝖊𝖎𝖓𝖊 𝕰𝖍𝖗𝖊 𝖍𝖊𝖎ß𝖙 𝕿𝖗𝖊𝖚𝖊
Amt VI..Ausland-SD

Turnagain
Posts: 10638
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 11:44 pm
Contact:

Re: The flaws in denier arguments

Post by Turnagain »

Nessie wrote:
I take physical evidence over witness evidence. Your claim that the Germans could not manage simple engineering is stupid. Your claim that witnesses should be able to describe exactly how something works is moronic. Your belief that witnesses would not make mistakes is utterly stupid.
In that case you should have no problem showing us proof that gas/vacuum chambers actually existed along with the mass graves. So far, you've been unable to do that. Even your heroine, CS-C said that she hadn't found the mass graves. Where is the proof of the Germans actually accomplishing those feats of engineering claimed by the alleged eyewitnesses?

Why is everything claimed by the alleged eyewitnesses either a "mistake" or an "exaggeration"? There are over a dozen witnesses who claim that the gas/vacuum chambers were hermetically sealed. Why did three of the alleged eyewitnesses give differing dimensions and a differing number of graves? Why do historians and archaeologists all agree that the M&H draglines dug the graves while you are the only person who claims that some mystery machine dug the graves? How did the Germans manage to exhume hundreds of thousands of whole bodies with an excavator, a dragline? You are the only person who claims that the Germans used some kind of mystery machine to perform that task.

All of the eyewitnesses claim that only minor amounts of wood was used to set the bodies ablaze on the magic Jew barbeque. Only you claim that vast quantities of firewood was shipped into and stored at Treblinka. Why is that, Nessie? Witnesses claim that 2-3,000 cadavers were placed on the magic Jew barbeque at a time. That would result in a pile of bodies at least 20 feet high. How was that accomplished, Nessie? Was that just another "mistake" by the alleged eyewitnesses?

Nessie apparently claims that the alleged eyewitnesses were either mistaken or exaggerating about every facet of the murders of the Jews at Treblinka. So, Nessie, should we just agree that all of the eyewitnesses all made these mistakes or just exaggerated while the ever so clever Germans went about their task of killing and cremating Jews? You can't seem to comprehend just how ridiculous you sound with your claim of, "Ignore the witnesses, the Germans knew how to get 'er done".
No, it is a fact that no historian uses your debunking methodology. No university teaches it. It is stupid, unreliable and only deniers use it.
Uh-huh, no historian ever questions the veracity of witnesses. If someone claims to be an eyewitness then their testimony MUST be accepted as the gospel truth by all academics. That's de rigueur for all historians and academics.
Your wack job CT that Jews ran the post-war West German legal system is the sign of a demented mind. The threat of imprisonment was low, many were acquitted and those who did go to prison, served short sentences in decent conditions.
Right, the trials were held to prove that the holyhoax actually occurred. Those who toed the Jew's line were rewarded with slap on the wrist sentences except for a couple of examples who were given life sentences. Why is that so hard for you to understand, Nessie?

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 32074
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: The flaws in denier arguments

Post by Nessie »

Turnagain wrote:
Sat Apr 03, 2021 8:41 pm
Nessie wrote:
I take physical evidence over witness evidence. Your claim that the Germans could not manage simple engineering is stupid. Your claim that witnesses should be able to describe exactly how something works is moronic. Your belief that witnesses would not make mistakes is utterly stupid.
In that case you should have no problem showing us proof that gas/vacuum chambers actually existed along with the mass graves. So far, you've been unable to do that. Even your heroine, CS-C said that she hadn't found the mass graves. Where is the proof of the Germans actually accomplishing those feats of engineering claimed by the alleged eyewitnesses?

Why is everything claimed by the alleged eyewitnesses either a "mistake" or an "exaggeration"? There are over a dozen witnesses who claim that the gas/vacuum chambers were hermetically sealed. Why did three of the alleged eyewitnesses give differing dimensions and a differing number of graves? Why do historians and archaeologists all agree that the M&H draglines dug the graves while you are the only person who claims that some mystery machine dug the graves? How did the Germans manage to exhume hundreds of thousands of whole bodies with an excavator, a dragline? You are the only person who claims that the Germans used some kind of mystery machine to perform that task.

All of the eyewitnesses claim that only minor amounts of wood was used to set the bodies ablaze on the magic Jew barbeque. Only you claim that vast quantities of firewood was shipped into and stored at Treblinka. Why is that, Nessie? Witnesses claim that 2-3,000 cadavers were placed on the magic Jew barbeque at a time. That would result in a pile of bodies at least 20 feet high. How was that accomplished, Nessie? Was that just another "mistake" by the alleged eyewitnesses?

Nessie apparently claims that the alleged eyewitnesses were either mistaken or exaggerating about every facet of the murders of the Jews at Treblinka. So, Nessie, should we just agree that all of the eyewitnesses all made these mistakes or just exaggerated while the ever so clever Germans went about their task of killing and cremating Jews? You can't seem to comprehend just how ridiculous you sound with your claim of, "Ignore the witnesses, the Germans knew how to get 'er done".
Stop pretending there is a lack of evidence to prove what happened at TII;

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=3808&p=151220#p151220

You accept significantly less evidence than that, which lacks credibility, to claim TII was a transit camp. Your double standard is plain to see.
No, it is a fact that no historian uses your debunking methodology. No university teaches it. It is stupid, unreliable and only deniers use it.
Uh-huh, no historian ever questions the veracity of witnesses. If someone claims to be an eyewitness then their testimony MUST be accepted as the gospel truth by all academics. That's de rigueur for all historians and academics.
Stop pretending that how historians assess evidence compared to how deniers do it, has not been explained to you. Historians assess evidence by
- looking for corroboration, but not the misunderstood version of corroboration that you use.
- differentiating between hearsay and eyewitness evidence, which you do not and that is wrong.
- understanding that witnesses do make mistakes and use hyperbole and that does not mean they lie.
- understanding that there are gaps in our knowledge and we will never know every minute detail, which is often irrelevant anyway.

That is a far more credible and reliable methodology that your denier pish, which you struggle to explain :lol:
Your wack job CT that Jews ran the post-war West German legal system is the sign of a demented mind. The threat of imprisonment was low, many were acquitted and those who did go to prison, served short sentences in decent conditions.
Right, the trials were held to prove that the holyhoax actually occurred. Those who toed the Jew's line were rewarded with slap on the wrist sentences except for a couple of examples who were given life sentences. Why is that so hard for you to understand, Nessie?
No, the trials were held because it was already accepted that the Holocaust had happened, due to Nazis openly admitting it and the overwhelming evidence it had happened. The trials were to judge the guilt or innocence of those involved. They ALL admitted their roles in the death camps, yet they got varying sentences and some were acquitted. Your claim that those who admitted it got lighter sentences is false. There is no evidence Jewish people controlled the West German legal system. Your wack job CT theory is drivel.
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: 10638
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 11:44 pm
Contact:

Re: The flaws in denier arguments

Post by Turnagain »

Nessie wrote:
Stop pretending there is a lack of evidence to prove what happened at TII...
LOL! Nessie is back to quoting the communist stooge, Lukaszkiewicz, and CS-C, the "archaeologist" who discovered the gas chamber tiles imprinted with a star of David. She even found some bones in the Christian cemetery. CS-C is also the person who promised to return to Treblinka and locate those mass graves...but that was 10 years ago and she hasn't showed up at Treblinka. Lukaszkiewicz was the guy who declared that mass graves didn't exist at Treblinka. Seems that they got "dug up" or something.
Stop pretending that how historians assess evidence compared to how deniers do it, has not been explained to you.
Right, historians mustn't question any eyewitnesses. Their word is sacrosanct. Proving that witnesses lied, known as impeaching a witness, can't be done by historians. According to Nessie, that is.

The German show trials of the 60's were for verifying that the Germans were guilty of genocide. Nessie has no German witnesses who weren't involved in that travesty and weren't subject to the threat of imprisonment.

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 32074
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: The flaws in denier arguments

Post by Nessie »

Turnagain wrote:
Sun Apr 04, 2021 10:17 am
Nessie wrote:
Stop pretending there is a lack of evidence to prove what happened at TII...
LOL! Nessie is back to quoting the communist stooge, Lukaszkiewicz,
Prove he was a stooge.
and CS-C, the "archaeologist"
Show her qualifications, since you are suggesting she is not suitably qualified.
who discovered the gas chamber tiles imprinted with a star of David. She even found some bones in the Christian cemetery. CS-C is also the person who promised to return to Treblinka and locate those mass graves...but that was 10 years ago and she hasn't showed up at Treblinka. Lukaszkiewicz was the guy who declared that mass graves didn't exist at Treblinka. Seems that they got "dug up" or something.
Stop pretending that how historians assess evidence compared to how deniers do it, has not been explained to you.
Right, historians mustn't question any eyewitnesses. Their word is sacrosanct. Proving that witnesses lied, known as impeaching a witness, can't be done by historians. According to Nessie, that is.
That is not true. You claim that once you have proved a witness lied, that then means every other witness lied and that somehow, those lying witnesses then prove what did happen :roll:

Your methodology is so bizarre, you cannot even explain how it works and how it is credible.
The German show trials of the 60's were for verifying that the Germans were guilty of genocide. Nessie has no German witnesses who weren't involved in that travesty and weren't subject to the threat of imprisonment.
Your "impeachment" methodology does not work with the Nazis, so you had to think up a new excuse to not believe them :lol:
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: 10638
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 11:44 pm
Contact:

Re: The flaws in denier arguments

Post by Turnagain »

Nessie wrote:
Prove he was a stooge.
Prove that he wasn't a stooge. You can start with showing the samples he took from the area of mixed earth and cremains, the laboratory analysis of those samples and photographic/third party verification of where the samples were taken.
Show her qualifications, since you are suggesting she is not suitably qualified.
There's no shortage of credentialed fools and charlatans in the world.
That is not true. You claim that once you have proved a witness lied, that then means every other witness lied and that somehow, those lying witnesses then prove what did happen :roll:

Your methodology is so bizarre, you cannot even explain how it works and how it is credible.
If that's the case then all you have to do is produce some credible Jew witnesses to how the Jews were murdered and their bodies disposed of at Treblinka. When the alleged eyewitnesses lie about what they witnessed it's a pretty good indication that what they claimed didn't happen. Jews weren't steamed/gassed/asphyxiated, buried, exhumed and cremated at Treblinka. That's proof of what didn't happen, not proof of what did happen.

The claims made for Treblinka being an extermination facility are demonstrably false. That is proven by the false statements made by the alleged eyewitnesses. Your excuses for the lies of the eyewitnesses and your litany of "what ifs" and "coulda woulda" are proof of nothing.

Nessie still has no German witness that wasn't involved in the marsupial escapades and under threat of imprisonment that can give coercion free testimony that Treblinka was an extermination facility. Nessie tries to weasel dodge that fact but there it is.

Turnagain
Posts: 10638
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 11:44 pm
Contact:

Re: The flaws in denier arguments

Post by Turnagain »

Nessie stamps his feet and shrieks, "No fair, no fair". Sell your idiocies down the street, Nessie. Lukaszkiewicz offered nothing, zip, zero, nada as proof of what he claimed to have found at Treblinka. CS-C got panned even by Nat'l Geo. You have no credible Jew or German witnesses to Treblinka being an extermination facility. Your claims about "methodology" are bullshit.

As far as my qualifications, I DO have them. Should I choose to, I can legally write letters after my name. What do you have, Nessie?

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 32074
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: The flaws in denier arguments

Post by Nessie »

Turnagain wrote:
Mon Apr 05, 2021 8:35 pm
Nessie wrote:
Prove he was a stooge.
Prove that he wasn't a stooge. You can start with showing the samples he took from the area of mixed earth and cremains, the laboratory analysis of those samples and photographic/third party verification of where the samples were taken.
It is up to you to prove he was a stooge, which you clearly cannot do, so you reverse the burden of proof.
Show her qualifications, since you are suggesting she is not suitably qualified.
There's no shortage of credentialed fools and charlatans in the world.
As a university academic, her work is subject to close scrutiny and peer review.
You on the other hand, have no relevant qualifications, nor does any other denier.
That is not true. You claim that once you have proved a witness lied, that then means every other witness lied and that somehow, those lying witnesses then prove what did happen :roll:

Your methodology is so bizarre, you cannot even explain how it works and how it is credible.
If that's the case then all you have to do is produce some credible Jew witnesses to how the Jews were murdered and their bodies disposed of at Treblinka. When the alleged eyewitnesses lie about what they witnessed it's a pretty good indication that what they claimed didn't happen. Jews weren't steamed/gassed/asphyxiated, buried, exhumed and cremated at Treblinka. That's proof of what didn't happen, not proof of what did happen.

The claims made for Treblinka being an extermination facility are demonstrably false. That is proven by the false statements made by the alleged eyewitnesses. Your excuses for the lies of the eyewitnesses and your litany of "what ifs" and "coulda woulda" are proof of nothing.

Nessie still has no German witness that wasn't involved in the marsupial escapades and under threat of imprisonment that can give coercion free testimony that Treblinka was an extermination facility. Nessie tries to weasel dodge that fact but there it is.
Instead of explaining why your methodology is credible and reliable, you just repeat your arguments. You do not understand why your methodology lacks logic, is unreliable and is not credible.
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 24 guests