Nessie's contradictory claims.

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).
Post Reply
Turnagain
Posts: 11885
Joined: 17 Jun 2014, 23:44
Contact:

Nessie's contradictory claims.

Post by Turnagain »

Nessie claimed that I was "off topic" for attempting to discuss his apparent contradictions on Werd's thread. So, here's a thread devoted entirely to his contradictory claims.

Nessie wrote:
Historians, courts and journalists all accept universal agreement from witnesses...
That's for the witnesses to the supposed atrocities at A-B. Nessie heartily endorses that claim and states that only revisionists reject such testimony when it doesn't suit their narrative.

Now let's consider the Treblinka witnesses. Multiple eyewitnesses state that the gas chambers were hermetically sealed. It's true that a court did in fact agree with the testimony of one witness, Abraham Rosenberg, who testified under oath that the gas chambers were hermetically sealed.

In the case of the A-B witnesses, their testimony is in "universal agreement" and must be taken as the truth. However, at Treblinka, the witnesses are in "universal agreement" that the gas chamber was hermetically sealed but Nessie declares that to be false. Witnesses made mistakes, exaggerated or engaged in hyperbole to enhance their stories.

So tell us, Nessie, why are A-B witnesses in "universal agreement" telling the truth but the witnesses who are in "universal agreement" at Treblinka rejected?
Bobcat
Posts: 428
Joined: 19 May 2021, 14:56
Contact:

Re: Nessie's contradictory claims.

Post by Bobcat »

Nessie
There is evidence some (maximum 12-15,000) went to other camps.

Between 6500 and 9000 prisoners are evidenced to have been selected for work on arrival at TII and left for other camps.

The evidenced 12-15,000 who we know went to other camps

2-3,000 were sent to work at other camps.

I have repeatedly accepted Hunts highest figure of 12-15,000.
User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 33546
Joined: 07 Mar 2014, 17:00
Contact:

Re: Nessie's contradictory claims.

Post by Nessie »

Turnagain wrote: 10 Jun 2021, 14:14 Nessie claimed that I was "off topic" for attempting to discuss his apparent contradictions on Werd's thread. So, here's a thread devoted entirely to his contradictory claims.

Nessie wrote:
Historians, courts and journalists all accept universal agreement from witnesses...
That's for the witnesses to the supposed atrocities at A-B. Nessie heartily endorses that claim and states that only revisionists reject such testimony when it doesn't suit their narrative.

Now let's consider the Treblinka witnesses. Multiple eyewitnesses state that the gas chambers were hermetically sealed. It's true that a court did in fact agree with the testimony of one witness, Abraham Rosenberg, who testified under oath that the gas chambers were hermetically sealed.

In the case of the A-B witnesses, their testimony is in "universal agreement" and must be taken as the truth. However, at Treblinka, the witnesses are in "universal agreement" that the gas chamber was hermetically sealed but Nessie declares that to be false. Witnesses made mistakes, exaggerated or engaged in hyperbole to enhance their stories.

So tell us, Nessie, why are A-B witnesses in "universal agreement" telling the truth but the witnesses who are in "universal agreement" at Treblinka rejected?
I don't reject the hermetic sealing claim as a mistake by the witnesses. The mistake is your misunderstanding what the witnesses meant by the chambers were hermetically sealed.
Turnagain
Posts: 11885
Joined: 17 Jun 2014, 23:44
Contact:

Re: Nessie's contradictory claims.

Post by Turnagain »

Nessie wrote:
I don't reject the hermetic sealing claim as a mistake by the witnesses. The mistake is your misunderstanding what the witnesses meant by the chambers were hermetically sealed.
The witnesses said that the gas chambers were hermetically sealed. What did I "misunderstand" about that?
User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 33546
Joined: 07 Mar 2014, 17:00
Contact:

Re: Turnagain does not understand what hermetic sealing means.

Post by Nessie »

Turnagain wrote: 12 Jun 2021, 15:44 Nessie wrote:
I don't reject the hermetic sealing claim as a mistake by the witnesses. The mistake is your misunderstanding what the witnesses meant by the chambers were hermetically sealed.
The witnesses said that the gas chambers were hermetically sealed. What did I "misunderstand" about that?
You misunderstood what they meant by hermetically sealed and assume they meant that a perfect hermetic seal was created, instead of the witnesses meant that the chambers did not leak gas when the gas tight doors were closed.
Turnagain
Posts: 11885
Joined: 17 Jun 2014, 23:44
Contact:

Re: Turnagain does not understand what hermetic sealing means.

Post by Turnagain »

Nessie wrote: 12 Jun 2021, 15:52
Turnagain wrote: 12 Jun 2021, 15:44 Nessie wrote:
I don't reject the hermetic sealing claim as a mistake by the witnesses. The mistake is your misunderstanding what the witnesses meant by the chambers were hermetically sealed.
The witnesses said that the gas chambers were hermetically sealed. What did I "misunderstand" about that?
You misunderstood what they meant by hermetically sealed and assume they meant that a perfect hermetic seal was created, instead of the witnesses meant that the chambers did not leak gas when the gas tight doors were closed.
HERMETICALLY SEALED
| definition in the Cambridge English dictionary.
A hermetically sealed container or space is so tightly closed that no air can leave or enter it.
The witnesses were in universal agreement that the chambers were hermetically sealed. I assumed nothing.

So how was engine exhaust turned into a hermetically sealed building for 10-30 minutes?
User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 33546
Joined: 07 Mar 2014, 17:00
Contact:

Re: Turnagain does not understand what hermetic sealing means.

Post by Nessie »

Turnagain wrote: 12 Jun 2021, 16:02
Nessie wrote: 12 Jun 2021, 15:52
Turnagain wrote: 12 Jun 2021, 15:44 Nessie wrote:
I don't reject the hermetic sealing claim as a mistake by the witnesses. The mistake is your misunderstanding what the witnesses meant by the chambers were hermetically sealed.
The witnesses said that the gas chambers were hermetically sealed. What did I "misunderstand" about that?
You misunderstood what they meant by hermetically sealed and assume they meant that a perfect hermetic seal was created, instead of the witnesses meant that the chambers did not leak gas when the gas tight doors were closed.
HERMETICALLY SEALED
| definition in the Cambridge English dictionary.
A hermetically sealed container or space is so tightly closed that no air can leave or enter it.
The witnesses were in universal agreement that the chambers were hermetically sealed. I assumed nothing.

So how was engine exhaust turned into a hermetically sealed building for 10-30 minutes?
You have assumed that the witnesses should be taken literally. Of course a gas chamber that had pipes running into it, does not match the dictionary definition of hermetically sealed, since gas could get in. :roll:

Just because the witnesses said that when the doors were closed on the gas chambers, that it was hermetically sealed, does not actually mean it is now a perfectly hermetic sealed chamber, or else how did the gas get in? Instead, there is a system of pipes leading from the engine into the gas chambers, in what is, when the engine is running, is a closed system filling the pipes and chambers with exhaust fumes. You then assumed Germans could not engineer a means to deal with pressure, merely because no witness specifically mentions it, which is a stupid, illogical argument.

This issue has been explained to you by blake and me, but sadly, you will never understand.
Turnagain
Posts: 11885
Joined: 17 Jun 2014, 23:44
Contact:

Re: Nessie's contradictory claims.

Post by Turnagain »

Nessie wrote:
You have assumed that the witnesses should be taken literally.
Here is your previous quote:
Historians, courts and journalists all accept universal agreement from witnesses...
Why can "historians, courts and journalists" take universal agreement as a proof while I and other revisionists are not afforded that same convention? Witnesses to the Treblinka gas chambers did NOT just say that the doors were closed on the chambers. They agreed that the chambers were hermetically sealed. Rosenberg's testimony to hermetically sealed gas chambers was, in fact, accepted by a court of law.
You then assumed Germans could not engineer a means to deal with pressure, merely because no witness specifically mentions it, which is a stupid, illogical argument.
I have assumed nothing. The witnesses are in universal agreement that the gas chambers were hermetically sealed. You have stated that universal agreement by witnesses is accepted as proof by "historians, courts and journalists" when you agreed with the A-B narrative. However, you declare that the witnesses at Treblinka must have made some kind of mistake so their testimony must be rejected. The witnesses state that the chambers were hermetically sealed. You declare that to be a mistake. The Germans engineered some kind of pressure relief system for the chambers but the witnesses, although in universal agreement that the chambers were hermetically sealed were mistaken.

Again, why do you accept universal agreement as proof in one case and reject it in another?
User avatar
Hüntinger
Posts: 10972
Joined: 20 Aug 2018, 04:56
Location: Gasthaus Waldesruh.Österreichisches Deutsch
Contact:

Re: Nessie's contradictory claims.

Post by Hüntinger »

Turnagain wrote: 12 Jun 2021, 17:49 Again, why do you accept universal agreement as proof in one case and reject it in another?
To be fair other mentions of hermetic sealing in other cases must be taken into account. I have read multiple times that witness have stated that ghettos were hermetically sealed. We know that in technical terms that is not possible so it may be an issue of translation depending on the language. Something to research instead of debating willy nilly with Nessie who will alter any interpretation of a word to suit his faith.

That aside the intention of the 'confused witnesses is to give the impression of a tight gas seal, to imply technical knowledge such as they did when describing the pipe layout of the steam chambers used for lobstering. I suggest before arguing with those where faith is a real option check out the translations first; was this in a book written in English or translated by some other dude.?
Turnagain
Posts: 11885
Joined: 17 Jun 2014, 23:44
Contact:

Re: Nessie's contradictory claims.

Post by Turnagain »

Huntinger wrote: 12 Jun 2021, 18:20
Turnagain wrote: 12 Jun 2021, 17:49 Again, why do you accept universal agreement as proof in one case and reject it in another?
To be fair other mentions of hermetic sealing in other cases must be taken into account. I have read multiple times that witness have stated that ghettos were hermetically sealed. We know that in technical terms that is not possible so it may be an issue of translation depending on the language. Something to research instead of debating willy nilly with Nessie who will alter any interpretation of a word to suit his faith.
I would agree except for the universal agreement by the eyewitnesses. Hermetically sealing an entire area, open to the sky is a metaphor, not a statement of fact. The Treblinka witnesses were in universal agreement that the gas chambers were hermetically sealed which is not a metaphor. Neither could that many translations be wrong in every case.

The point being that Nessie claims that universal agreement is a proof when he agrees with the conclusion but rejects such a notion when he doesn't agree with the conclusion. He pompously declares that "historians, courts and journalists" agree with universal agreement but then rejects that claim in what is clearly an identical case.

Nessie has trod firmly on his own appendage and is now trying to weasel dodge his way out of it.
Post Reply