You burst into tears when I ask you to pick one document and then show how only other documents can prove what that one document actually means.
Um, I picked several. And I told you what rooms they were talking about.
Nessie wrote: ↑
Thu Apr 08, 2021 9:39 am
Links to links and pages and pages copied from Mattogno are designed to bamboozle and create the impression you have the evidence and proof.
How dare I give links to things; something you have demanded I do in the past. How dare I post pages of Mattogno's books because they're less work for me instead of typing it all out myself or copying and pasting all the text from a pdf that when I paste it, the lines aren't as long (left to right) as normal in a rodoh post - it looks like someone just keeps hitting enter/return on the keyboard randomly without cause too many times.
You're the one being a bitch about the situation.
That is what Mattogno does, but it does not explain how that methodology actually works.
Proof is in the pudding.
It does not explain how only documents can be used to evidence and prove what another document means.
One example out of the many already given:
No lying eyewitness is going to overturn the documents which show the real context of the Swoboda document.
Special treatment was meant for corpses, not living people.
You refuse to provide specific examples where you link to documents
Mattogno quotes longer extracts from documents than one line, ala HC style. YOU HAVE TO ACTUALLY READ THE ENTIRE CHAPTERS. Don't worry. Rodoh readers will and they'll see the truth.
Mattogno cherry picks and uses non sequitur claims that just because documents appear to refer to something innocent, therefore they are all about something innocent,
Another false strawman about a fake Mattogno non sequitor. I've already refuted this lie of yours about how he works. Here is that refutation again>
Werd wrote: ↑
Fri Mar 26, 2021 2:31 am
because he uses the faulty argument that because "special" was used to mean non homicidal actions, therefore it only ever meant that.
Strawman again. Mattogno doesn't use documents about for example horse stable barracks or BW 5a and 5B to claim that there is no humans killed in the kremas. HE USES MORE DOCUMENTS ABOUT KREMAS AFTER THE DOCUMENTS ABOUT KREMAS PRESSAC SELECTED. You know this and are just wasting time lying now.
He ignores all of the eyewitness evidence and circumstantial evidence. His methodology is unlike the historical methodology and his conclusion is not backed by any evidence.
There is no proof for example that the January 29 Vergasungskeller document proves people were gassed in that building. Don't worry, I'll post the entire first part of the second chapter of THE REAL CASE FOR AUSCHWITZ soon under a new title Mattogno obliterates Pressac's criminal traces IV.
Just shouting there are documents is not good enough,
Neither is citing one line from a document out of context that once the context is established, turns out to be harmless.
I do that regularly using the HC source, which lists all the documents that evidence a special action/treatment at Birkenau involving gassing people.
Turns out that wasn't the case a lot. Here is but one example of HC's failure.
HC make their evidencing very clear and simple.
Quote one line from a document out of context that "sounds" bad because of question begging on the issue of "code language."
you cannot produce specific documents
All the mattogno chapters I quoted, have extracts from the criminal traces that are longer than one line.
and explain in your own words how they prove what did happen at the Kremas.
What was that I said again in my own words?
The special cellars were literally corpse cellars with an air exchange/ventilation system.
You're still a lying, trolling idiot.