|
Post by ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐ด๐ป๐ธ on Nov 23, 2021 20:27:06 GMT
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? When someone asked you about interpreting evidence, it was implied that interpretation is not needed as the evidence speaks for itself. Now there is another back track where dubious evidence is interpreted wrong. Seems this poster wants it all ways.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,207
|
Post by Nessie on Nov 23, 2021 20:30:11 GMT
No one wants to answer, because the logical answer is that just because a witness describes something in a way that can be interpreted as being physically impossible, that does not therefore mean it is physically impossible. So, even if no witness can describe a gas chamber that would work, that does not mean therefore gas chambers are physically impossible.
|
|
Turnagain
โ๏ธ
๐๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐๐
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on Nov 24, 2021 2:32:41 GMT
No one wants to answer, because the logical answer is that just because a witness describes something in a way that can be interpreted as being physically impossible, that does not therefore mean it is physically impossible. So, even if no witness can describe a gas chamber that would work, that does not mean therefore gas chambers are physically impossible. Of course gas chambers were and are possible. Jet planes are commonplace but claiming that someone built a 747 from scratch in his home workshop using no tools but a hammer isn't believable. That doesn't mean that jet planes don't exist but it does mean that the guy who claimed to have built a 747 is either lying or hallucinating. If you want to prove that gas chambers were used to murder Jews at T-II then you need a credible witness to give an accurate description of the gas chamber and how the Jews were gassed. Claiming that witness accounts are irrelevant because gas chambers are known exist is a weasel dodge.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,207
|
Post by Nessie on Nov 24, 2021 10:38:49 GMT
No one wants to answer, because the logical answer is that just because a witness describes something in a way that can be interpreted as being physically impossible, that does not therefore mean it is physically impossible. So, even if no witness can describe a gas chamber that would work, that does not mean therefore gas chambers are physically impossible. Of course gas chambers were and are possible. Jet planes are commonplace but claiming that someone built a 747 from scratch in his home workshop using no tools but a hammer isn't believable. That doesn't mean that jet planes don't exist but it does mean that the guy who claimed to have built a 747 is either lying or hallucinating. If you want to prove that gas chambers were used to murder Jews at T-II then you need a credible witness to give an accurate description of the gas chamber and how the Jews were gassed. Claiming that witness accounts are irrelevant because gas chambers are known exist is a weasel dodge. Good, you admit the Germans could have built gas chambers out of concrete, bricks, tiles, pipes, valves and an engine. Their engineering skills were at that level in the 1940s.
I have not claimed the witness accounts are irrelevant. I have claimed they cannot be used as the sole method for determining if gassings took place or not, purely from how they describe gassings. You have admitted that is correct, so why do you claim no gassings, based only on the evidence of the witnesses?
How a witness describes the functioning of a gas chamber is not the determining factor in whether or not gassings happened.
|
|
Turnagain
โ๏ธ
๐๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐๐
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on Nov 24, 2021 12:25:46 GMT
It isn't about what the Germans "coulda" done. It's about what they DID. The Germans DID build gas chambers and they weren't anything like what was described by the alleged witnesses. Claiming that it "coulda" happened is nothing but horse frocky. Claiming that how a witness described how the gas chamber functioned wasn't a "determining factor" in whether or not homicidal gassing took place is just piling the horse frocky deeper.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,207
|
Post by Nessie on Nov 24, 2021 17:32:06 GMT
It isn't about what the Germans "coulda" done. It's about what they DID. The Germans DID build gas chambers and they weren't anything like what was described by the alleged witnesses. The gas chambers as variously described by witnesses, would have been functional. An engine pumping exhaust fumes into chambers with secured doors and a system of vents would have worked. The only thing that Wiernik fails to mention in his description, is how pressure was dealt with, but that was a simple matter of a hinged vent that would open if pressure gets to a certain level. I am not claiming it "coulda" happened. I am claiming it is evidenced to have happened, we just do not have every single detail about how it happened. I have not claimed that. You claim that how a witness describes the functioning of a gas chamber, is the only way to determine if gassings happened. That is nonsense. Just because a witness does not give an accurate or detailed description about how something happened, does not therefore mean it did not happen.
|
|
|
Post by ๐๐จ๐๐๐ซ๐๐ญ๐จ๐ซ on Nov 24, 2021 17:40:09 GMT
How a witness describes the functioning of a gas chamber is not the determining factor in whether or not gassings happened. This might be true if there were independent evidence of the existence of these items; the only evidence are the witnesses themselves who make fantastical claims and contradict one another. This in conjunction with the obvious morphing of the stories to make the fantastic claims appear more plausible would strongly suggest that what is described is a different beast altogether. In 1987 Yitzhak Arad quoted a report from the Underground Resistance Movement dating Nov 42 describing the use of "steam chambers". He brazenly changed the words to gas chambers in his book. He eliminates the witness statements that disagree with the official narrative. Such witness statements include the use of chlorine, black vapors and collapsible floors. The chambers would have to hold 13 people to every square metre (27cm 2 each). While Arad was not a personal witness he was quoting statements albeit selectively from eye witnesses.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,207
|
Post by Nessie on Nov 24, 2021 18:01:58 GMT
How a witness describes the functioning of a gas chamber is not the determining factor in whether or not gassings happened. This might be true if there were independent evidence of the existence of these items; the only evidence are the witnesses themselves who make fantastical claims and contradict one another. The witness evidence is NOT the only evidence. There is physical evidence of the remains of a building as described by witnesses, in the location where witnesses said gas chambers were located. There is the circumstantial evidence of mass arrivals, the theft of personal property and no mass departures and the cremated and other buried remains at the camp. There is nothing fantastical about a building used for gassings. The Germans had the engineering and construction abilities to make gas chambers. The eyewitnesses to gassing barely contradict each other. They all claim an engine was used to gas people, with some variation about people suffocating inside the chambers. ALL of the eyewitnesses to the gas chambers said an engine was used. The variation comes from witnesses who worked inside TII, but not at the gas chambers. It is best practice to select eyewitnesses from witnesses who worked elsewhere in the camp and did not see the gassings.
|
|
|
Post by Sandhurst on Nov 24, 2021 18:28:11 GMT
The witness evidence is NOT the only evidence. There is physical evidence of the remains of a building as described by witnesses, in the location where witnesses said gas chambers were located. There is the circumstantial evidence of mass arrivals, the theft of personal property and no mass departures and the cremated and other buried remains at the camp. The existence of building remains is not evidence of gas chambers, only evidence that a building thought to be a gas chamber existed. Seems any regular building would do for a good gassing. Any building is a gas chamber. It seems that Turnagain has explained this in detail but obviously ignored. There were no engineers of sophistication at these places; if there were the ad hoc gum and shoelace methods would not have been adopted. What it seems like is very primitive methods that an uneducated country bum might perceive at the time; designed to fit into the lack of imagination of similarly educated readers. This is the gas chamber and funeral pyre equivalent of a "cargo cult". The first real gassing was in the United States (Gee Jon) in 1924, which was reported world wide; the gas chamber used was left to the imaginations of the readers. First attemptThey put in a wooden chair with straps to hold Gee Jon. This took 1.8 kg of liquid Hydrogen Cyanide in a 25 cubic metre space (11 x 10 x 8 ft)
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,207
|
Post by Nessie on Nov 24, 2021 19:44:06 GMT
The witness evidence is NOT the only evidence. There is physical evidence of the remains of a building as described by witnesses, in the location where witnesses said gas chambers were located. There is the circumstantial evidence of mass arrivals, the theft of personal property and no mass departures and the cremated and other buried remains at the camp. The existence of building remains is not evidence of gas chambers, only evidence that a building thought to be a gas chamber existed. When witnesses claim a building, constructed in a certain way existed in a certain place and years later excavations in that place find the remains of a building constructed as witnesses describe, that means there is physical evidence to corroborate the witness evidence. Your claim of the only evidence is witness evidence is wrong. You are correct that any secure room with pipes into it from an engine could be used for gassings. But revisionists claim such is a physical impossibility, which is clearly wrong. That is not relevant. That the eyewitnesses, as in those who saw gassings, all describe an engine used to pump in fumes, is strong corroborating evidence. Their evidence is further corroborated by the physical and circumstantial evidence. It does not matter that Wiernik, Rajchman and others were prone to emotive language, made mistakes, exaggerated, misremembered, mixed hearsay with what they saw, that is normal for witnesses. What matters is, was what they claimed physically possible, answer; yes, and is it corroborated, answer; yes.
|
|
|
Post by ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐ด๐ป๐ธ on Nov 24, 2021 20:37:07 GMT
When witnesses claim a building, constructed in a certain way existed in a certain place and years later excavations in that place find the remains of a building constructed as witnesses describe, that means there is physical evidence to corroborate the witness evidence. Your claim of the only evidence is witness evidence is wrong. To these witnesses, every shower block, every morgue, every unused house was a gas chamber; they saw gas chambers or related instruments of death in the trees, in the clouds, under the ground, every bush and every railway line. There is such conflicting opinion as to the locations of these gas chambers, the construction and methods of operation that it is impossible to determine which one is real, if any. Take for example this witness version of the Treblinka II camp layout: The Wiernik maps has quite a different layout to the Rumanian one. [  Note the relative position of the main railway line which is on the wrong side of the camp. The Moszek Laks map is as follows While Oneg Szabat gives the world this treasure: As any person with normal vision and mental acuity can discern, locating the gas chambers from these works of cartography would be more than a little challenging. These are just vague references. Sadly Nessies argument that buildings could be located in a "certain place" is somewhat void if not vacant. The readers can decide on the technical competence of the poster. The State of Nevada discovered that pumping cyanide into a room did not work, as the man had to be executed at another time. The highlighted above is just a repetition with no substance. I thought the idea of dismembering the corpses was a great idea, but somehow, Nessie does not believe that eye witness. That eye witness said that 500 people were pushed INTO the ovens, not onto. It is clear he is talking about physical krema ovens and not outside pyres.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,207
|
Post by Nessie on Nov 24, 2021 20:51:27 GMT
The Emissary Map was drawn based on second hand information, it is wrong of you to compare it to other maps. The Wiernik Map is actually a plan of the gas chambers and hardly shows any of the camp. The Laks and Szabat maps are rough drawings, which you have cherry picked them from this source; www.deathcamps.org/treblinka/maps.htmlIf you compare only the attempts to accurately map out the camp, by people who were inside the camp, they all have the gas chambers roughly in the middle of the camp, with Nazi accommodation to one side and the graves and reception centre/Lazarete either side of the gas chambers.
|
|
|
Post by ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐ด๐ป๐ธ on Nov 24, 2021 22:18:19 GMT
Here is a map of the Polish rail network in the 30s. The railway line from Warsaw to Bialystok is highlighted in yellow, the TII camp is a red dot on the Malkinia to Bialystok line. The TII camp in a northerly aspect has the Malkinia-Siedlce railway line or road several hundred metres to the right Here is a copy of Wierniks map, which Nessie correctly said shows the alleged extermination area. One can assume the arrow means North. However, the map indicates the railway track (Tor kolejawy) which clearly indicates the Warsaw Bialystok line and NOT the Malkinia -Siedlce line which TII was allegedly on. This track was ripped up quite a few years post war. Wiernik drew this map in 1944, after his dramatic escape from the TII "extermination camp"; I have superimposed Wierniks map onto the Polish rail map to get the perspective. Wierniks railway lines are in green, these merge into the Warsaw-Bialystok line which he claims was next to this camp. This also shows the camps orientation; his arrow is about 10 0 NE which is within reason. Wiernik has this camp in the wrong location, unless he is referring to the Malkinia camp.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,207
|
Post by Nessie on Nov 25, 2021 10:31:49 GMT
If someone draws a plan that does not match what is otherwise known, logically does that mean
- the person is lying - the person made a mistake - the person is not very good at drawing plans
With regards to Wiernik, what about his other maps and models of the camp? They do not look like that architectural plan. Did Wiernik actually draw that plan? Or was it drawn based on what someone else thought he had said?
|
|
|
Post by ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐ด๐ป๐ธ on Nov 25, 2021 11:23:27 GMT
With regards to Wiernik, what about his other maps and models of the camp? They do not look like that architectural plan. Did Wiernik actually draw that plan? Or was it drawn based on what someone else thought he had said? Nessie asks who drew the map. It is clear from the map he drew that the Warsaw to Bialystok railway ran to the left of the camp. This could be mistaken for the Malkinia- Siedlce railway if the map arrow was point south; the arrow is however pointing North West. This drawing coincides exactly with a camp on the Warsaw to Bialystok railway. His second map was drawn a year later, which is different. His first map has the "extermination centre" with railway spur entering it in the opposite direction to later maps. Interesting how he put a railway spur into his map but sadly for him it is in entirely the wrong place, the opposite side to where it should be.
|
|