The flaws in denier arguments

[Nessie]

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?

Explain your methodology

1 - how it works
2 - why it is reliable and credible
3 - why no historian uses it.

[Turnagain]

Nessie's stooge, Lukaszkiewicz, offers not one shred of proof of his claims. Luaszkiewicz offers nothing but, "Yup, went there an' I seen it. Seen the acres of ashes and bones. It was awrful". Nessie says, "Yup, Lukaszkiewicz went to Treblinka an' he seen everything. It was awrful". Anyone who asks to see a little proof of these claims is guilty of reversing the burden of proof. Hey, hoaxers don't need no steenkin' evidence. Just ask Nessie.

Yep, CS-C is subject to peer review and even Nat'l Geo panned her propaganda flick from Treblinka. CS-C also declared that she would return to Treblinka and locate the mass graves. That was ten years ago and she's been a no-show ever since. Most likely speculation is she DID complete a GPR scan of the grounds and found zip so high-tailed it out of there with no intention of ever returning.

Right, Nessie doesn't allow any debunking of the witnesses no matter how outrageous their lies. He excuses those lies and posits a string of "what ifs" and "coulda woulda" to justify the impossibilities. Debunking the lying eyewitnesses is somehow an "unreliable methodology". Only in holyhoax la-la land.

[Nessie]

Nessie's stooge, Lukaszkiewicz, offers not one shred of proof of his claims. Luaszkiewicz offers nothing but, "Yup, went there an' I seen it. Seen the acres of ashes and bones. It was awrful". Nessie says, "Yup, Lukaszkiewicz went to Treblinka an' he seen everything. It was awrful". Anyone who asks to see a little proof of these claims is guilty of reversing the burden of proof. Hey, hoaxers don't need no steenkin' evidence. Just ask Nessie.

I have linked to what is available online of his enquiry. There is a partial translation of his report by Mattogno, see part 2;

http://vho.org/GB/Books/t/4.html

There is a link to witness statements he took here;

https://www.zapisyterroru.pl/dlibra/res ... 20camp&p=0

There is a link as to how a copy of the original report can be obtained here, it is in Polish;

https://translate.google.com/translate? ... ch&pto=aue

None of the findings suit Turnagain, so he makes childish comments and allegations that he cannot prove.

Yep, CS-C is subject to peer review and even Nat'l Geo panned her propaganda flick from Treblinka. CS-C also declared that she would return to Treblinka and locate the mass graves. That was ten years ago and she's been a no-show ever since. Most likely speculation is she DID complete a GPR scan of the grounds and found zip so high-tailed it out of there with no intention of ever returning.

Her report is here and it shows that she found underground disturbances around the memorial.

https://etheses.bham.ac.uk/id/eprint/35 ... s12PhD.pdf

Again, since the findings do not suit Turnagain, he makes childish comments and allegations he cannot prove.

Right, Nessie doesn't allow any debunking of the witnesses no matter how outrageous their lies. He excuses those lies and posits a string of "what ifs" and "coulda woulda" to justify the impossibilities. Debunking the lying eyewitnesses is somehow an "unreliable methodology". Only in holyhoax la-la land.

Explain your "debunking" methodology,

1 - how it works
2 - why it is reliable and credible
3 - why no historian uses it.

[Turnagain]

Nessie wrote:

None of the findings suit Turnagain, so he makes childish comments and allegations that he cannot prove.

Uh-huh, asking for some proof of the claims made by a hoaxer is "childish". My allegation is that Lukaszkiewicz offers no proof of his claims. He also claims that the mass graves no longer exist. That is demonstrably false. Nessie weasel dodges by linking to several irrelevant sites.

Her report is here and it shows that she found underground disturbances around the memorial.

CS-C found NO evidence of ground disturbances consistent with the mass graves. Nat'l Geo DID pan her film and rebuke her for her lack of scientific rigor.

Explain your "debunking" methodology...

First question about witness testimony, "Is it possible"?
Impeaching a witness's testimony is an accepted legal principle in any US court.
Claiming that no historian ever questions the testimony of witnesses is bullshit.

[Nessie]

Nessie wrote:

None of the findings suit Turnagain, so he makes childish comments and allegations that he cannot prove.

Uh-huh, asking for some proof of the claims made by a hoaxer is "childish". My allegation is that Lukaszkiewicz offers no proof of his claims. He also claims that the mass graves no longer exist. That is demonstrably false. Nessie weasel dodges by linking to several irrelevant sites.

How is it dodging that I have linked to information about the evidence that is in his report, that is online and where you can get the report in full?

He offers a physical examination of the site and witnesses who were prisoners in the camp, or worked nearby as evidence to prove it was a death camp.

Her report is here and it shows that she found underground disturbances around the memorial.

CS-C found NO evidence of ground disturbances consistent with the mass graves. Nat'l Geo DID pan her film and rebuke her for her lack of scientific rigor.

That is not true. She found ground disturbances where witnesses said graves were dug. The problem is that only the grass areas could be surveyed, and so only part of those disturbances can be surveyed. You have been told that before, but you pretend to forget because it does not suit your claims.

Explain your "debunking" methodology...

First question about witness testimony, "Is it possible"?

You mean "is it possible?" as described by the witnesses, rather than "is it impossible?" to do at that time and place under any and all circumstances. There is a crucial difference. Just because the way a witness describes something would be impossible, does not therefore mean it is impossible. You admit that the Germans in the 1940s could built a functioning gas chamber, dig pits and cremate bodies on pyres. You just do not believe it could be done as the witnesses described it.

Impeaching a witness's testimony is an accepted legal principle in any US court.

A witness who cannot describe how something was done, is not necessarily lying. Courts did not reject testimony because witnesses did not describe in detail how a gas chamber worked, because the courts knew that those witnesses would not necessarily know exactly how they worked.

Claiming that no historian ever questions the testimony of witnesses is bullshit.

I have not made that claim. Historians test witnesses by looking for corroboration and what is the logical convergence of that evidence? They don't test witnesses by how well or not they describe how a gas chamber worked. They test the witnesses by comparing their claims to the other evidence, from other witnesses, physical, documentary and circumstantial evidence and how that all converges. The witnesses claim mass gassings, which is backed up by regular mass arrivals and no regular mass departures. Both the Nazis and the Jews claim mass gassings, which is compelling because they have no reason to cooperate. Witnesses described a brick, concrete building with a tiled interior in a specific part of the camp and the remains of such a building were found during excavations. Witnesses claim cremations and buried cremains have been found. All of that logically converges on the mass gassing conclusion.

Why is your debunking methodology reliable and credible?

[Turnagain]

Nessie wrote:

He offers a physical examination of the site and witnesses who were prisoners in the camp, or worked nearby as evidence to prove it was a death camp.

Lukaszkiewcz offer nothing but his and the words of liars and charlatans. Let's see some physical evidence. Samples taken, verified and analyzed by a reputable lab. Even that isn't beyond the ability of the Soviets to fake. Some sequential photos and third party observers. Of course there isn't anything like that available. Lukaszkiewcz is lying through his teeth.

That is not true. She found ground disturbances where witnesses said graves were dug. The problem is that only the grass areas could be surveyed, and so only part of those disturbances can be surveyed. You have been told that before, but you pretend to forget because it does not suit your claims.

CS-C found NO evidence consistent with the mass graves as described by the alleged eyewitnesses. NONE, zip, zero, nada. She declared that she would return to Treblinka and precisely locate the mass graves. Your claim that the mass graves are no longer accessible is bullshit. As I said, the most likely scenario is CS-C DID complete a GPR scan and found nothing. Her promise to return and locate the graves was nothing but smoke and mirrors. What part of "CS-C didn't find any graves" don't you understand?

You mean "is it possible?" as described by the witnesses, rather than "is it impossible?" to do at that time and place under any and all circumstances.

I mean that is what the alleged eyewitnesses claimed. This is what they said. Is that possible? No, the claims of the alleged eyewitnesses aren't possible. Of course you have your laundry list of excuses for their lies and your claim that no matter what the alleged eyewitnesses said, the ever so clever Germans knew how to get 'er done. You can't produce one, single solitary credible Jew eyewitness to the supposed murders at Treblinka. Not one! You have to hedge every eyewitness account with your weasel words. Even with your weasel words you can't explain how the bodies were exhumed or stacked 20 feet high on the magic Jew barbeque. Musta' been a "mistake" an "exaggeration"...or something.

A witness who cannot describe how something was done, is not necessarily lying.

A witness who claims that he saw an impossible event is either hallucinating or lying.

The witnesses claim mass gassings...

Yes, and they also claim mass murder by asphyxiation, mass graves, exhuming bodies with a clamshell, stacking the bodies 20 feet high on the magic Jew barbeque and setting them ablaze with nothing but twigs, brushwood or camp detritus. You claim that it was all possible. Hey, apply some weasel words and the ever so clever Germans and Bob's your uncle.

[Nessie]

Nessie wrote:

He offers a physical examination of the site and witnesses who were prisoners in the camp, or worked nearby as evidence to prove it was a death camp.

Lukaszkiewcz offer nothing but his and the words of liars and charlatans. Let's see some physical evidence. Samples taken, verified and analyzed by a reputable lab. Even that isn't beyond the ability of the Soviets to fake. Some sequential photos and third party observers. Of course there isn't anything like that available. Lukaszkiewcz is lying through his teeth.

You have no evidence he lied. It was 1945 Poland, what samples would he take and as you admit, you could just claim they were faked by the Soviets. You have nothing to disprove Lukaszkiewcz, so you think up excuses to dismiss him.

That is not true. She found ground disturbances where witnesses said graves were dug. The problem is that only the grass areas could be surveyed, and so only part of those disturbances can be surveyed. You have been told that before, but you pretend to forget because it does not suit your claims.

CS-C found NO evidence consistent with the mass graves as described by the alleged eyewitnesses. NONE, zip, zero, nada. She declared that she would return to Treblinka and precisely locate the mass graves. Your claim that the mass graves are no longer accessible is bullshit. As I said, the most likely scenario is CS-C DID complete a GPR scan and found nothing. Her promise to return and locate the graves was nothing but smoke and mirrors. What part of "CS-C didn't find any graves" don't you understand?

The part that the memorial and the trees limit what can be surveyed. Despite that, underground disturbances were still found, which is consistent with the Nazis had been digging at the camp.

You mean "is it possible?" as described by the witnesses, rather than "is it impossible?" to do at that time and place under any and all circumstances.

I mean that is what the alleged eyewitnesses claimed. This is what they said. Is that possible? No, the claims of the alleged eyewitnesses aren't possible.

In your opinion, based on how you interpret their words. For example, you claim hermetic sealing makes a gassing impossible. I say it makes sense to stop leaks and the witnesses do not literally mean the chamber was a perfect seal where nothing could get in or out.

Of course you have your laundry list of excuses for their lies and your claim that no matter what the alleged eyewitnesses said, the ever so clever Germans knew how to get 'er done. You can't produce one, single solitary credible Jew eyewitness to the supposed murders at Treblinka. Not one! You have to hedge every eyewitness account with your weasel words. Even with your weasel words you can't explain how the bodies were exhumed or stacked 20 feet high on the magic Jew barbeque. Musta' been a "mistake" an "exaggeration"...or something.

A witness who cannot describe how something was done, is not necessarily lying.

A witness who claims that he saw an impossible event is either hallucinating or lying.

You miss out hyperbole, mistakes, exaggerations, estimations because they are perfectly innocent reasons why witnesses may describe something that, if you take their words in a certain way, is impossible. Courts do not dismiss everything every witness said, just because someone said something that does not appear possible. Courts look to see if there is evidence it happened or not.

You continue to ignore the witnesses who say gassings happened, without describe how. You have no way of assessing their evidence using your methodology.

The witnesses claim mass gassings...

Yes, and they also claim mass murder by asphyxiation, mass graves, exhuming bodies with a clamshell, stacking the bodies 20 feet high on the magic Jew barbeque and setting them ablaze with nothing but twigs, brushwood or camp detritus. You claim that it was all possible. Hey, apply some weasel words and the ever so clever Germans and Bob's your uncle.

You are mixing hearsay and eyewitness evidence together, which is dishonest of you. You have also yet again failed to explain why your methodology is credible and reliable.

[Nessie]

The denier methodology of assessing witness evidence and descriptions of how gassings etc worked is not credible or reliable because;

1 - it fails to have a way of assessing those who say there was gassing, but do not describe how it was done
2 - presumes a truthful witness will know precisely how it was done and would not make any mistakes or misremember
3 - presumes witnesses had full access to know all details
4 - is biased towards trying to find reasons to not believe the witnesses
5 - it is based on the logical fallacy of argument from incredulity, whereby because the denier finds it incredible, therefore it cannot have happened
6 - it ignores evidence that what is claimed to have happened, did happen.

[Turnagain]

Nessie wrote:

You have no evidence he lied.

Lukaszkiewcz claimed that the mass graves, "No longer existed". That's bullshit.

The part that the memorial and the trees limit what can be surveyed. Despite that, underground disturbances were still found, which is consistent with the Nazis had been digging at the camp.

If the area to be surveyed is so limited, why did CS-C promise that she would return to Treblinka and locate the graves?
Why wouldn't latrines, garbage pits, etc. be dug? Where is your proof that ALL of the holes were dug by Germans?

In your opinion, based on how you interpret their words. For example, you claim hermetic sealing makes a gassing impossible. I say it makes sense to stop leaks and the witnesses do not literally mean the chamber was a perfect seal where nothing could get in or out.

Over a dozen witnesses claim that the gas/vacuum chambers were hermetically sealed. It's also claimed that the gas chambers functioned as vacuum chambers. Finito. End of story.

You miss out hyperbole, mistakes, exaggerations, estimations...

Sell your excuses and weasel words down the street, Nessie.

You are mixing hearsay and eyewitness evidence together, which is dishonest of you.

Bullshit! Those are claims made by eyewitnesses.

The denier methodology of assessing witness evidence and descriptions of how gassings etc worked is not credible or reliable because...

More bullshit. The lies of the alleged eyewitnesses are unproved by both the impossibility of their claims and the lack of any evidence for those claims. For example: It's claimed that huge mass graves existed. No huge mass graves have ever been found. Whole cadavers were exhumed with a clamshell. That's just flat impossible. It's claimed that ~850,000 bodies were cremated. No such amounts of cremains have ever been located. So it goes in holyhoax la-la land.

[Huntinger]

The denier methodology of assessing witness evidence and descriptions of how gassings etc worked is not credible or reliable because;

1 - it fails to have a way of assessing those who say there was gassing, but do not describe how it was done
2 - presumes a truthful witness will know precisely how it was done and would not make any mistakes or misremember
3 - presumes witnesses had full access to know all details
4 - is biased towards trying to find reasons to not believe the witnesses
5 - it is based on the logical fallacy of argument from incredulity, whereby because the denier finds it incredible, therefore it cannot have happened
6 - it ignores evidence that what is claimed to have happened, did happen.

It appears this poster has few means to discern factual witness statements with troublesome emotional hearsay; the fact that it corroborates what others are saying means nothing, mass hysteria is a common phenomena.