|
|
Post by ๐๐ฅ๐๐๐ณ๐ง๐จ๐๐ซ on Nov 9, 2021 12:24:06 GMT
VIII Decretum: ๐๐ณ ๐๐ผ๐ ๐ต๐ฎ๐๐ฒ ๐ป๐ผ๐๐ต๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐ป๐ฒ๐ ๐๐ผ ๐๐ฎ๐ ๐๐ต๐ฒ๐ป ๐ถ๐ ๐ถ๐ ๐ฏ๐ฒ๐๐ ๐๐ผ ๐๐ฎ๐ ๐ป๐ผ๐๐ต๐ถ๐ป๐ด. ๐๐ป๐ฒ๐ฒ ๐ท๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ธ ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฝ๐น๐ถ๐ฒ๐ ๐ป๐ผ๐ ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ฐ๐ฒ๐ฝ๐๐ฎ๐ฏ๐น๐ฒ.
Posts in violation of this decree have been removed. Future violations will not be tolerated.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,210 
|
Post by Nessie on Nov 9, 2021 16:58:01 GMT
You have failed to note that the statements made by witnesses about showers and gassings, were made AFTER the war, when they had found out about the subterfuge. Yet again, you have failed to taken into account simple chronology. When they were being taken to the camps, they did not know about showers that were in fact gas chambers. They were not told about that on arrival at the camps and were told, often by others Jews, to strip and they were going for a shower. Those Jews were the Sonderkommados, who had accepted they would help the Nazis so that they could try to survive. It was only after being selected to work, that the Jews then found out that the showers were in fact gas chambers. Then, after the war, often years later, they told how lucky they had to been to escape being sent to the supposed showers that they had subsequently found to be gas chambers. The people heard about the fake showers during the war; of course they were interviewed after it. They had heard rumors and believed that the showers would deliver gas and not water. Irene Zisblatt says: "I was told not to eat as eating make it harder to die with the gas, when I had a shower, water came out, I couldn't believe it". I will repeat, that every jew in Hungary, Poland, Rumania, Greece "knew" that showers meant gas. Show me some Jewish witness evidence from statements given in 1942-3, that they knew the camps they were being sent to had gas chambers disguised as showers. |
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,210
|
Post by Nessie on Nov 9, 2021 17:09:19 GMT
That helps to further prove my point, witnesses are not good at estimating crowds and tend to overestimate, whether it is Gerstein or Wiernik. What is important, is they corroborate. People were stuffed into gas chambers and gassed. When witnesses and accused corroborate, that adds to the credibility of their evidence. For some reason you are defending obvious liars. If there are 1000 people in a sports ground, it is OK to estimate 800 or perhaps 1200. If someone estimates 10 thousand then the credibility of that person is in serious doubt. It does however, appear a concession that the witnesses are not lying but merely mistaken. That is fine, but it is a matter of what degree. They are not "obvious" liars. They are behaving like most witnesses do! They make mistakes, often lots of them. Anyone familiar with witness evidence is familiar with the common mistakes witness make, such as being poor at estimating crowd size. A simple search online of common witness mistakes and faults will show that, for example, all the estimations about Trump's Presidential inauguration crowd size. Lots of witnesses estimated it incorrectly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sandhurst on Nov 9, 2021 18:18:49 GMT
They are not "obvious" liars. They are behaving like most witnesses do! Everyone familiar with military black ops would recognize what these men are, especially considering they were partisans with strong links and membership to the resistance movements. It were they that were responsible for the murder of SS men and Ukrainian guards in the break out; this was a military operation from the beginning to the end. Black Propaganda is just one of the tools used to get sorely needed resources concentrated in their area. The Gerstein report was the ideal catalyst to place the propaganda at exit points along the Bug river. |
|
mrolonzo
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ญ๐ซ๐ข๐๐ข๐๐ง
Posts: 869
|
Post by mrolonzo on Nov 13, 2021 12:01:56 GMT
Revisionist use of arguments from incredulity are going to be called out, because such arguments are not a substitute for evidence and they are illogical. Arguments from incredulity are not illogical. |
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,210
|
Post by Nessie on Nov 20, 2021 20:15:14 GMT
Revisionist use of arguments from incredulity are going to be called out, because such arguments are not a substitute for evidence and they are illogical. Arguments from incredulity are not illogical. They are when what is being claimed is not physically impossible. It is physically possible for the Germans to have engineered gas chambers out of concrete, bricks, tiles, wood, pies and valves, and dug large pits and cremated on pyres on grates. Just because Wiernik, Rajchman and other witnesses do not give particularly convincing and/or detailed descriptions of how it was done, does not therefore mean it did not happen. |
|
|
|
Post by been_there on Nov 21, 2021 10:20:10 GMT
EXAMPLE of a similar TYPE of illogical, empirically-refuted narrative:
โข X killed crores of Ys with darts made out of frozen yakโs milk.
โข X then disposed of all the Y bodies by erasing all trace of crores of them by cremation using a Bunsen burner.
EXAMPLE of a REVISIONIST / SKEPTICAL type of logical, reasonable, well-informed rebuttal:
โข X had no easy access to the necessary amount of Yak milk, nor was that a practical and viable method of mass-murder.
โข Nor is it physically possible to cremate the claimed amount of bodies with one such burner, not even if X had thousands of Bunsen burnerโs
EXAMPLE of HOLYCAUST-DEFENDERโs, illogical, nonsensical, idiotic argument:
โข It IS physically possible to kill people with darts made out of frozen yakโs milk.
โข How do you know X had no access to the necessary amount of Yak milk? Provide evidence he had no access. It IS physically possible to get yakโs milk and freeze it into the shape of a dart.
โข It IS physically possible to burn bodies with Bunsen burners.
๐๐คฆโโ๏ธ๐คช
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,210
|
Post by Nessie on Nov 21, 2021 10:53:27 GMT
Wiernik gives the most detail about the workings of the gas chambers. He describes a building made out of bricks, tiles and concrete, with wooden doors and a roof cap that had hermetic seals and a system of pipes and valves that ran from an engine. The exhaust fumes from the engine killed the people crammed inside the chambers. Some of Wiernik's quotes here, along with other witnesses, used to develop a CAD model of the gas chambers; www.deathcamps.org/gas_chambers/gas_chambers_trebcad.htmlIt is physically possible for the Nazis to have engineered and constructed a functioning gas chamber, using those materials and the method described. Been-there knows that, which is why he makes a bizarre false analogy about frozen Yak's milk darts. He cannot argue against the construction method described, so he invents a false analogy. |
|
|
|
Post by been_there on Nov 21, 2021 16:33:12 GMT
(Oh boy! ๐๐คฆโโ๏ธ)
Of course it IS possible to make hundreds of thousands of darts made of frozen yakโs milk.
OF COURSE it IS possible to then create a device that will shoot the darts made of frozen yakโs milk.
OF COURSE it IS possible and highly likely that people shot in the head or heart with darts made of frozen yakโs milk will die.
So, OF COURSE it IS physically possible to mass-murder hundreds of thousands of people in Europe with such an impracticable and ridiculous methodology. Of course! ๐ [sigh]
Likewise, OF COURSE it WAS โphysically possibleโ for all and any of the combatant nations of WW2 to have โengineered and constructed a โfunctioning gas chamberโ.
And no-one has ever denied that.
The problem is that the gas-chambers that the lie-witness โH-survivorsโ described and which the coerced PoWs โconfessedโ to, in many ways were not โfunctionalโ.
They instead were chambers described in ways that are physically impossible and non-functioning.
Most readers will recognise the truth of this, and will not make literally stupid replies arguing against their own strawman misunderstanding of it.
That the above answer, from the forum troll, misunderstands the point of the analogy, demonstrates the futility of reasoning with a person with such extremely low comprehension capabilities. ๐
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,210
|
Post by Nessie on Nov 21, 2021 16:37:41 GMT
The problem is that the gas-chambers that the lie-witness โH-survivorsโ described and which the coerced PoWs โconfessedโ to, were not โfunctioningโ. They instead were chambers described in ways that are physically impossible and non-functioning. ... Think logically. If someone describes something that is "physically impossible and non-functioning" does that therefore mean what they describe did not happen? |
|
Turnagain
โ๏ธ
๐๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐๐
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on Nov 22, 2021 1:21:04 GMT
For some reason you are defending obvious liars. If there are 1000 people in a sports ground, it is OK to estimate 800 or perhaps 1200. If someone estimates 10 thousand then the credibility of that person is in serious doubt. It does however, appear a concession that the witnesses are not lying but merely mistaken. That is fine, but it is a matter of what degree. They are not "obvious" liars. They are behaving like most witnesses do! They make mistakes, often lots of them. Anyone familiar with witness evidence is familiar with the common mistakes witness make, such as being poor at estimating crowd size. A simple search online of common witness mistakes and faults will show that, for example, all the estimations about Trump's Presidential inauguration crowd size. Lots of witnesses estimated it incorrectly.
Rajchman claimed that 250,000 cadavers were buried in a pit ~40 feet deep. Not only that but their blood was accidentally set on fire and burned for an entire day and a night. Claiming that such lies are just mistakes or "misestimations" is a beyond belief absurdity. |
|
Agandaur
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ญ๐ซ๐ข๐๐ข๐๐ง
Posts: 137
|
Post by Agandaur on Nov 22, 2021 2:31:47 GMT
linkYehiel Reichman Treblinka II survivor said: I am sure some people would find this testimony of this "eye witnesses" at the Demjanjuk trial compelling.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,210
|
Post by Nessie on Nov 22, 2021 9:09:12 GMT
Been-there has dodged answering this question, which also applies to the two posts above.
Think logically. If someone describes something that is "physically impossible and non-functioning" does that therefore mean what they describe did not happen?
|
|
|
|
Post by ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐ด๐ป๐ธ on Nov 23, 2021 18:41:52 GMT
Been-there has dodged answering this question, which also applies to the two posts above. Think logically. If someone describes something that is "physically impossible and non-functioning" does that therefore mean what they describe did not happen? I think it is obvious that if something is physically impossible it did not happen. Similar to claims of walking on water and water turning into wine sort of stuff. |
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,210
|
Post by Nessie on Nov 23, 2021 20:09:15 GMT
Been-there has dodged answering this question, which also applies to the two posts above. Think logically. If someone describes something that is "physically impossible and non-functioning" does that therefore mean what they describe did not happen? I think it is obvious that if something is physically impossible it did not happen. Similar to claims of walking on water and water turning into wine sort of stuff. You are now the third person dodging my question. I am not asking if something is physically impossible. I am asking about a witness describing something in a way that can be interpreted as physically impossible. Does that logically mean what they describe is physically impossible? |
|
