Witness credibility

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: 9336
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:56 am
Location: Gasthaus Waldesruh.Österreichisches Deutsch
Contact:

Re: Witness credibility

Post by Huntinger »

Nessie wrote:
Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:35 pm
The idea of a centrally controlled conspiracy that manipulated millions to lie is a wack-job, nutter conspiracy theorist. It had to be millions, because you claim millions were not gassed, so they are all in on the lie and stood by saying nothing about what supposedly did happen.
The Soviet Extraordinary Commission, who was in part responsible for the Katyn fraud had a staff of 7 million; these Soviet Charlatans were aided by the Polish 'Główna Komisja Ścigania Zbrodni przeciwko Narodowi Polskiemu" with a few million more. It is not a nutter job that the Extraordinary State Commission blamed the German side were in fact committed by Soviet state security agencies. This could well be the case in the alleged holocaust claims. The NKVD murdered 250 thousand people just outside Minsk a few kilometres from where they claimed the Germans murdered the same number at Maly Trostenets.

Many juden spoke of "other people" that got gassed, except for Irene Zisplatt who was pushed backwards out of a gaskammer, while a thousand people were behind her. For most people it was always somewhere else to someone else; the rest have fantastic stories of water coming out of shower heads (strange), or 'I realised after I had been sitting in a gaskammer and they ran out of gas".

It has not occurred to the poster Nessie that people do not speak of non events, which is why it was and must always be someone else, somewhere else.


𝖀𝖒𝖆𝖗𝖒𝖊 𝖉𝖆𝖘 𝕷𝖊𝖇𝖊𝖓, 𝖓𝖎𝖈𝖍𝖙 𝖆𝖚𝖘𝖇𝖊𝖚𝖙𝖊𝖓.
Amt IV

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: 31274
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Witness credibility

Post by Nessie »

Denier credibility is in question, not the witnesses.
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: 9336
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:56 am
Location: Gasthaus Waldesruh.Österreichisches Deutsch
Contact:

Re: Witness credibility

Post by Huntinger »

Nessie wrote:
Mon Feb 22, 2021 4:29 pm
Denier credibility is in question, not the witnesses.
The topic of this thread is "witness credibility" and Nessie changes it around to "Denier Credibility". :roll: :roll: :roll:
I think we know who lacks credibility. 8-)


𝖀𝖒𝖆𝖗𝖒𝖊 𝖉𝖆𝖘 𝕷𝖊𝖇𝖊𝖓, 𝖓𝖎𝖈𝖍𝖙 𝖆𝖚𝖘𝖇𝖊𝖚𝖙𝖊𝖓.
Amt IV

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 31274
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Witness credibility

Post by Nessie »

Huntinger wrote:
Mon Feb 22, 2021 4:31 pm
Nessie wrote:
Mon Feb 22, 2021 4:29 pm
Denier credibility is in question, not the witnesses.
The topic of this thread is "witness credibility" and Nessie changes it around to "Denier Credibility". :roll: :roll: :roll:
I think we know who lacks credibility. 8-)
Explain how the denier methodology works, and how it is more reliable than corroboration.
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: 9336
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:56 am
Location: Gasthaus Waldesruh.Österreichisches Deutsch
Contact:

Re: Witness credibility

Post by Huntinger »

Nessie wrote:
Mon Feb 22, 2021 4:34 pm
Explain how the denier methodology works, and how it is more reliable than corroboration.
There is a current thread on this called Flaws in deniers arguments; this thread is on witness credibility. It appears as though the poster Nessie is confused; again, as usual. :roll:


𝖀𝖒𝖆𝖗𝖒𝖊 𝖉𝖆𝖘 𝕷𝖊𝖇𝖊𝖓, 𝖓𝖎𝖈𝖍𝖙 𝖆𝖚𝖘𝖇𝖊𝖚𝖙𝖊𝖓.
Amt IV

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 31274
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Witness credibility

Post by Nessie »

Huntinger wrote:
Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:13 pm
Nessie wrote:
Mon Feb 22, 2021 4:34 pm
Explain how the denier methodology works, and how it is more reliable than corroboration.
There is a current thread on this called Flaws in deniers arguments; this thread is on witness credibility. It appears as though the poster Nessie is confused; again, as usual. :roll:
I was referring to the denier methodology for assessing witness credibility :roll:
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: 10010
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 11:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Witness credibility

Post by Turnagain »

Nessie wrote:
I am not saying he was a liar. I have always pointed out that use of hyperbole etc is not a reliable or credible method of assessing witness credibility.
What the hell are you maundering about? Are you saying that Solzhenitsyn told the truth but isn't reliable or credible?

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 31274
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Witness credibility

Post by Nessie »

Turnagain wrote:
Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
Nessie wrote:
I am not saying he was a liar. I have always pointed out that use of hyperbole etc is not a reliable or credible method of assessing witness credibility.
What the hell are you maundering about? Are you saying that Solzhenitsyn told the truth but isn't reliable or credible?
He told the truth. We know that because of corroborating evidence that he was in the gulags and what life was like there. Not because we think he is believable, based on how he wrote about what happened.
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: 10010
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 11:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Witness credibility

Post by Turnagain »

Nessie wrote:
He told the truth. We know that because of corroborating evidence that he was in the gulags and what life was like there. Not because we think he is believable, based on how he wrote about what happened.
The world audience had no notion of the Russian prison system and how it operated until Solzhenitsyn wrote the, "Gulag Archipelago". "Corroborating evidence" my shiny hiny. Solzhenitsyn's book was compelling evidence not like the unbelievable claims of such charlatans as Wiernik, Rajchman and Wiesel.

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 31274
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Witness credibility

Post by Nessie »

Turnagain wrote:
Mon Feb 22, 2021 7:36 pm
Nessie wrote:
He told the truth. We know that because of corroborating evidence that he was in the gulags and what life was like there. Not because we think he is believable, based on how he wrote about what happened.
The world audience had no notion of the Russian prison system and how it operated until Solzhenitsyn wrote the, "Gulag Archipelago". "Corroborating evidence" my shiny hiny. Solzhenitsyn's book was compelling evidence not like the unbelievable claims of such charlatans as Wiernik, Rajchman and Wiesel.
How do you know what Solzhenitsyn wrote was true? Was it just what he wrote? Or is it because there is other evidence to support his claims?
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 40 guests