Bergs bogus challenges?

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
Nessie
Posts: 26801
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Bergs bogus challenges?

Post by Nessie » Thu Nov 06, 2014 9:15 pm

Werd wrote:
Now quit pretending I will not accept things from you in order to spare yourself the humiliating task of what I bet is scowering the holocaust books/articles you have and coming back empty handed and being forced to admit that there is nothing in the narrative stating Jews with shovels worked with excavators to dig the new pits when the first ones were overflowing and bodies were piled up. If you can provide, I will retract what I just said. If you had it, you would show it. Put up or shut up. Very simple.

You cannot seriously think it was incredulous the Jews were never put to work when digging the pits, can you?
Yet another dodge from the onus probandi. So all in all...No proof. No photographs. No witness statements. No reason for believing it to be part of the traditional holocaust narrative. Issue done. Nessie, -1.
Where is the dodge? I have admitted I have no photos or testimony to sonderkommandos helping to dig the pits at TII. I do however have good reason to believe they were involved as they were involved in all other work at the camp.
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.

Werd
Posts: 9001
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

Re: Bergs bogus challenges?

Post by Werd » Thu Nov 06, 2014 9:17 pm

That is a tiny part of those involved in the study of the Holocaust. Pointing our their lack of relevant qualifications means the denier/revisionist "experts" are almost universally unqualified.
And as suspected, this would fly right over your head. You made an appeal to authority when talking about what historians have agreed upon about Belzec, Treblinka and Sobibor and it turns out many of your 'authorities' aren't even trained as historians who have doctorates. So if you're going to try to appeal to an authority, at least try a little harder. But I agree with you that history degrees don't matter. Many revisionists speak and understand more languages than their adversaries. In other words, arguments and evidence which show the truth (or falsity) of something are the real authority. Authority is not truth. Truth is authority. What is the meaning of all of this therefore in my post you are responding to? That ARGUMENTS and EVIDENCE which should be persuasive are what really matters. The person spouting them is merely a middleman. We need middlemen. Otherwise how would we find out things, or test and verify things we don't know about or don't have time for ourselves?
The black and yellow are completely wrong. Wiernik also said people who die of hunger were yellow, which is wrong. For some reason I cannot explain they ascribe colours to dead people which would not be present. They are not just wrong, they are completely wrong.
I couldn't have said it better myself, folks. :D
I have admitted I have no photos or testimony to sonderkommandos helping to dig the pits at TII. I do however have good reason to believe they were involved as they were involved in all other work at the camp.
For anyone who has even the tiniest respect for the hierarchy of evidence and levels and strengths of induction arguments, they will see this as a clear contradiction.
Last edited by Werd on Thu Nov 06, 2014 9:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 26801
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Bergs bogus challenges?

Post by Nessie » Thu Nov 06, 2014 9:20 pm

Werd wrote:
How many times do you have to be told I cannot answer your question with a definite answer? All I can show is that witnesses are known to get details wrong, I cannot show you in detail why.
My inability to answer has no bearing on what the actual answer is.
Then I am under no obligation to believe they are telling the truth about gassings. Especially when you admitted that others would have seen red patches of livor mortis from the one or two gassed batches that were piled up and remained piled up for hours because the new pits only went under construction (digging) AFTER the pits were overflowing and bodies were piled. Although you stipulate and say they probably died. So then this brings in why they would not be so traumatized by the same event to see yellow, or black, or a new colour, while apparently Wiernik and Rajchman would.

1. Wiernik and Rajchman saw gassed corpses but lied about the colour for some reason.

2. Wiernik and rajchman saw gassed corpses but were honestly mistaken due to certain effects.

3. Wiernik and rachman never saw gassed corpses in Treblinka.

You have already picked 2 and have admitted to not be able to justify it.
That is not true. I have picked 2 and said that corroboration of the gassing narrative from other sources is why I have done so. I have not admitted what you claim.

Werd wrote: Why is this situation the only one that you have trouble explaining 'mistakes' in. As my red text explains, mistakes are easy to explain if one just does a little more perusal of the certain situation at hand. I wonder why the holocaust, I.E. Treblinka in this case, is the only unique case in that mistakes can not be explained by scientists and psychologists. Perhaps it's a clue that the gassing component is nonsense?
You have latched onto the colour of the dead coming out of the gas chamber
Only because you latched onto non colour of the dead coming out of the gas chamber when debating with Fritz, only to change tactics and latch on to corpse colour again when it comes to Wiernik and rajchman. You are the real double standard holding hypocrite, Nessie. And I latched on to the colour thing to point this out to you. Get it?
Berg claims something that is scientifically incorrect, so I do not believe it. The same is true for Wiernik and Rajchman. They all got is wrong regarding the colour of those who have just died from acute CO poisoning.
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.

Werd
Posts: 9001
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

Re: Bergs bogus challenges?

Post by Werd » Thu Nov 06, 2014 9:26 pm

Berg claims something that is scientifically incorrect, so I do not believe it.
Okay, that's the setup. Let's see if you can remain consistent in your own personal outlook...
The same is true for Wiernik and Rajchman. They all got is wrong regarding the colour of those who have just died from acute CO poisoning.
Bringing us back to this...
1. Wiernik and Rajchman saw gassed corpses but lied about the colour for some reason.

2. Wiernik and rajchman saw gassed corpses but were honestly mistaken due to certain effects.

3. Wiernik and rachman never saw gassed corpses in Treblinka.

You have already picked 2 and have admitted to not be able to justify it.
Nessie:
I have picked 2 and said that corroboration of the gassing narrative from other sources is why I have done so. I have not admitted what you claim.
Um, yes you did. You talked about stress and trauma. But as the red text thing already showed, you went down that road and couldn't get far. THAT is what you admitted to. Want me to quote that exchange again? Okay, sure.
Nessie wrote:
Werd wrote: WHY do mistakes happen in witness memories with stress or trauma? According to the study you cited, people can focus on one aspect at the expense of another, the lighting may be bad, they may misread a logo on a shirt because it is wrinkled or partially covered up by a jacket, they may be too far away, or have poor eyesight to differentiate between a six inch blade and an eight inch blade. These are simple and easy explanations that tell us WHY mistakes were made.

THESE ARE EXPLANATIONS THAT EXPLAIN MISTAKES. THEY ARE THE ANSWERS FOR THE WHYS.

All you need to do is provide a PLAUSIBLE SCIENTIFIC explanation as to how to alleged inmates that saw the same gassings reported different skin colours. If you can not provide, then no one is under any obligation to believe you. You keep dodging this and playing dumb, but it is not working anymore. If you deny the enlarged, bolded part above, then you really are too stupid to debate with because you don't understand the scientific/inductive method.
The possibilities you have given are not the complete list of alternatives. If I cannot give you an answer, I will not give you an answer. My inability to answer has no bearing on what the actual answer is.
I can't give you an answer, but I know there's one out there even though I haven't seen it. For if I had seen it, I would be able to give it to you...which I just said I can't.

Good one. :roll:
Last edited by Werd on Fri Nov 07, 2014 3:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Werd
Posts: 9001
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

Re: Bergs bogus challenges?

Post by Werd » Fri Nov 07, 2014 3:16 pm

Rajchman's contradictory testimonies still haven't been dealt with by you.

http://rodoh.info/forum/viewtopic.php?p=52870#p52870

User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 8520
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: Bergs bogus challenges?

Post by been-there » Fri Nov 07, 2014 5:25 pm

Werd wrote:
an idiot troll wrote:If I cannot give you an answer, I will not give you an answer. My inability to answer has no bearing on what the actual answer is.
=
I can't give you an answer, but I know there's one out there even though I haven't seen it. For if I had seen it, I would be able to give it to you...which I just said I can't.
He he. Nice summarisation. :D
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 26801
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Bergs bogus challenges?

Post by Nessie » Sun Nov 09, 2014 3:32 pm

Werd wrote:.....

1945: "The bullet went through the neck and mouth and pierced the nose and then went out."

Through the neck, into the mouth passageway, up through the palete, hit the nose AND THEN WENT OUT.

1966: The bullet came out..."Through my mouth...It shot out two of my teeth." "My nose was cut open in two places."

How can a bullet knock out two teeth but also head up through the palete and come out of the nose as described in 1945? It seems to me like Srebnik is contradicting himself about the exit point of the bullet. Can anyone resolve this contradiction and put my nagging doubts to rest?
He used different wording and phrasing to describe the same thing when he was asked about it at separate times with different questions. People are not as precise and consistent as you think they should be.
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
Nessie
Posts: 26801
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Bergs bogus challenges?

Post by Nessie » Sun Nov 09, 2014 3:36 pm

Werd wrote:.......

Bringing us back to this...
1. Wiernik and Rajchman saw gassed corpses but lied about the colour for some reason.

2. Wiernik and rajchman saw gassed corpses but were honestly mistaken due to certain effects.

3. Wiernik and rachman never saw gassed corpses in Treblinka.

You have already picked 2 and have admitted to not be able to justify it.
.....
All you need to do is provide a PLAUSIBLE SCIENTIFIC explanation as to how to alleged inmates that saw the same gassings reported different skin colours. If you can not provide, then no one is under any obligation to believe you. You keep dodging this and playing dumb, but it is not working anymore. If you deny the enlarged, bolded part above, then you really are too stupid to debate with because you don't understand the scientific/inductive method.
The possibilities you have given are not the complete list of alternatives. If I cannot give you an answer, I will not give you an answer. My inability to answer has no bearing on what the actual answer is.

I can't give you an answer, but I know there's one out there even though I haven't seen it. For if I had seen it, I would be able to give it to you...which I just said I can't.

Good one. :roll:
What is your evidenced, scientific explanation for 1 or 3? You have summed up why I cannot be precise about the reason why I say the answer is 2. There are a number of different reasons why it was 2 and I have no way of knowing which one was the cause.
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.

Werd
Posts: 9001
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

Re: Bergs bogus challenges?

Post by Werd » Sun Nov 09, 2014 7:59 pm

Nessie wrote:
Werd wrote:.....

1945: "The bullet went through the neck and mouth and pierced the nose and then went out."

Through the neck, into the mouth passageway, up through the palete, hit the nose AND THEN WENT OUT.

1966: The bullet came out..."Through my mouth...It shot out two of my teeth." "My nose was cut open in two places."

How can a bullet knock out two teeth but also head up through the palete and come out of the nose as described in 1945? It seems to me like Srebnik is contradicting himself about the exit point of the bullet. Can anyone resolve this contradiction and put my nagging doubts to rest?
He used different wording and phrasing to describe the same thing
No he didn't. Read again. How can a bullet pierce the nose but also knock out two of your teeth without destroying the palete? I don't see how that was even physically, scientifically possible. Did you also notice that lack of scars on his nose in that youtube video I linked up? The one you didn't have the nerve to quote and answer THAT point.

The only way a bullet can knock out teeth and pierce the nose without doing any palete damage depends on how his head was tilted if at all. That would be a one in a million shot. Especially since there is no visible scar on his nose in that video. In 1945 he says NOTHING about teeth. It took him twenty years to remember the teeth part? Sounds silly. Let me guess. Stress made him forget about getting his teeth ruined, but he remembered every other aspect? :roll:

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 26801
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Bergs bogus challenges?

Post by Nessie » Sun Nov 09, 2014 8:23 pm

Werd wrote:.......
No he didn't. Read again. How can a bullet pierce the nose but also knock out two of your teeth without destroying the palete? I don't see how that was even physically, scientifically possible. Did you also notice that lack of scars on his nose in that youtube video I linked up? The one you didn't have the nerve to quote and answer THAT point.

The only way a bullet can knock out teeth and pierce the nose without doing any palete damage depends on how his head was tilted if at all. That would be a one in a million shot. Especially since there is no visible scar on his nose in that video. In 1945 he says NOTHING about teeth. It took him twenty years to remember the teeth part? Sounds silly. Let me guess. Stress made him forget about getting his teeth ruined, but he remembered every other aspect? :roll:
Would you answer a different series of questions so many years apart by saying exactly the same thing on each occasion? No you would not, but you expect others to behave that way. A way you have never produced any evidence to back it up. I have pointed out repeatedly that no court, no historian, no science study expects witnesses to have consistently accurate recollection and recall all of the time. Only denier/revisionists expect that to happen and consistently dodge saying why you are right and the rest are all wrong.

Just like your lack of any evidence bodies commonly and obviously discolour when death is by acute high level CO poisoning, you have no evidence to back up your claims about 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.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot] and 21 guests