|
Post by ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐ด๐ป๐ธ on Oct 3, 2023 9:54:33 GMT
Accept the new evidence and alter the plan? So with history you think it is acceptable to alter the evidence to fit in with preconceptions. This is basically what you are saying. This is basically the same as police planting evidence at a crime scene to convict someone. This is the same as police ignoring key witnesses who say something different to secure a conviction.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,773
|
Post by Nessie on Oct 3, 2023 13:46:26 GMT
Accept the new evidence and alter the plan? So with history you think it is acceptable to alter the evidence to fit in with preconceptions. This is basically what you are saying. This is basically the same as police planting evidence at a crime scene to convict someone. This is the same as police ignoring key witnesses who say something different to secure a conviction. You dodged my questions; If you believe something and then evidence is found that shows your original belief is wrong, is it fraudulent for you to then alter your original belief to a new one? If an original plan is found to be wrong, because of new evidence, what should be done? Ignore the new evidence and continue to present the wrong plan? Accept the new evidence and alter the plan? I will answer yours; When new evidence proves that old evidence was wrong, it is obviously correct to alter one's position and use the new evidence. That is not the same as planting evidence, or ignoring key witnesses. It is finding new evidence that alters a former understanding to a new one. When new evidence proves that a plan of a camp was wrong, what is wrong with altering the plan of the camp? Would you stick with the old, incorrect evidence?
|
|
|
Post by ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐ด๐ป๐ธ on Oct 3, 2023 20:23:56 GMT
When new evidence proves that a plan of a camp was wrong, what is wrong with altering the plan of the camp? Would you stick with the old, incorrect evidence? They are hiding the fact that the witnesses who made the original maps were wrong and so is anything else they said.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,773
|
Post by Nessie on Oct 4, 2023 7:48:30 GMT
When new evidence proves that a plan of a camp was wrong, what is wrong with altering the plan of the camp? Would you stick with the old, incorrect evidence? They are hiding the fact that the witnesses who made the original maps were wrong and so is anything else they said. How are they hiding that? That the witnesses were wrong is information that is still available to see. It is no wonder you dodged answering my questions. You did not understand that history develops as new information is found. Your lack of understanding of how history is investigated, is one reason why you have fallen for the denier hoax.
|
|
|
Post by ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐ด๐ป๐ธ on Oct 4, 2023 7:51:23 GMT
That the witnesses were wrong is information that is still available to see. How can they be wrong, they lived there for all their lives. The misinformation you seek to promulgate is obviously wrong.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,773
|
Post by Nessie on Oct 4, 2023 8:31:04 GMT
That the witnesses were wrong is information that is still available to see. How can they be wrong, they lived there for all their lives. The misinformation you seek to promulgate is obviously wrong. If you were asked to draw a plan of somewhere, years after you had been there, the chances are that plan would contain mistakes due to normal memory failings. The accuracy of the plan would also be affected by your ability to draw accurately. Deniers, due to their lack of knowledge of witnesses, think witnesses should be able to remember far better than is possible. Denial relies on disbelieving the witnesses, because there are no witnesses speaking to any alternative version of events. Instead of understanding that it is normal and expected that the witnesses will have all made mistakes, deniers use those mistakes to disbelieve them.
|
|
|
Post by ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐ด๐ป๐ธ on Oct 4, 2023 8:39:36 GMT
How can they be wrong, they lived there for all their lives. The misinformation you seek to promulgate is obviously wrong. If you were asked to draw a plan of somewhere, years after you had been there, the chances are that plan would contain mistakes due to normal memory failings. The accuracy of the plan would also be affected by your ability to draw accurately. Deniers, due to their lack of knowledge of witnesses, think witnesses should be able to remember far better than is possible. Denial relies on disbelieving the witnesses, because there are no witnesses speaking to any alternative version of events. Instead of understanding that it is normal and expected that the witnesses will have all made mistakes, deniers use those mistakes to disbelieve them. I was not talking about the map but the camp location by various people, locals and real surveyors who know the land. I am not talking about small mistakes but huge errors such as area 1 at Sobibor which was from the original maps the locations of the jewish quarters. The photos show an empty space. The liars did not realize that the photos of the real Sobibor would come to fruition many years later.
|
|
|
Post by ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐ด๐ป๐ธ on Oct 4, 2023 8:55:55 GMT
there are no witnesses speaking to any alternative version of events. Olszuk
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,773
|
Post by Nessie on Oct 4, 2023 9:49:38 GMT
If you were asked to draw a plan of somewhere, years after you had been there, the chances are that plan would contain mistakes due to normal memory failings. The accuracy of the plan would also be affected by your ability to draw accurately. Deniers, due to their lack of knowledge of witnesses, think witnesses should be able to remember far better than is possible. Denial relies on disbelieving the witnesses, because there are no witnesses speaking to any alternative version of events. Instead of understanding that it is normal and expected that the witnesses will have all made mistakes, deniers use those mistakes to disbelieve them. I was not talking about the map but the camp location by various people, locals and real surveyors who know the land. I am not talking about small mistakes but huge errors such as area 1 at Sobibor which was from the original maps the locations of the jewish quarters. The photos show an empty space. The liars did not realize that the photos of the real Sobibor would come to fruition many years later. You just do not get that people make mistakes, lots of them, even experts. You then exaggerate the significance of those mistakes, to support your desired belief of a conspiracy. Rather than learn about normal witness behaviour, you cling on to your mistaken belief that mistakes are lies. You do that because you have no witnesses to alternative events at the death camps, so your only available tactic is to attack the witnesses to what happened.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,773
|
Post by Nessie on Oct 4, 2023 9:54:52 GMT
there are no witnesses speaking to any alternative version of events. Olszuk Faurisson did such a poor job of interviewing Olzuck, that he rendered him a virtually useless witness. The most significant evidence that TII was not a death camp, would be evidence of mass transports of people back out of the camp. Olzuck has nothing to say about that. The rest of what Faurisson reports is inconclusive. The terrible smell, screams and burning clothes can fit with both TII as a death camp and as a camp with another purpose. That Olzuck said he saw nothing of significance, at a camp the Nazis were doing their level best to hide its actual purpose, is not evidence of anything notable. Olzuck does not provide testimony that evidences an alternative purpose. The limited information Faurisson got, is inconclusive.
|
|
|
Post by ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐ด๐ป๐ธ on Oct 4, 2023 10:44:28 GMT
Faurisson did such a poor job of interviewing Olzuck, that he rendered him a virtually useless witness. The most significant evidence that TII was not a death camp, would be evidence of mass transports of people back out of the camp. Olzuck has nothing to say about that. The rest of what Faurisson reports is inconclusive. The terrible smell, screams and burning clothes can fit with both TII as a death camp and as a camp with another purpose. That Olzuck said he saw nothing of significance, at a camp the Nazis were doing their level best to hide its actual purpose, is not evidence of anything notable. Olzuck does not provide testimony that evidences an alternative purpose. The limited information Faurisson got, is inconclusive. While there is work still progress on der Status jรผdischer Zwangsarbeitslager und Zugfahrplรคne, it is a fact that the trains stopped for extended periods of locations of labour camps specifically for Jews. It is probably a fact that most of the Jews did not arrive at places like Treblinka. A single incident of terrible smells and screaming Jews (wailing wall culture) means nothing, especially in the light of the propaganda these sad people had heard. Olszuk is a witness to nothing happening of consequence at this camp. This is verified by the Stationmaster who only took a photo when the camp was burning after the insurrection, not when the pyres were in operation. If there is a dichotomy in this scenario it is apparent that the side Nessie is on is corrupt. At Klowns their members who used to belong here hide in their conclave, with a moderator of a forum that who expels dissent. They started a blog called Holocaust Controversies but expelled from the other believers due to fake evidence. They tampered with evidence, which Nessie finds acceptable.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,773
|
Post by Nessie on Oct 4, 2023 10:54:42 GMT
Faurisson did such a poor job of interviewing Olzuck, that he rendered him a virtually useless witness. The most significant evidence that TII was not a death camp, would be evidence of mass transports of people back out of the camp. Olzuck has nothing to say about that. The rest of what Faurisson reports is inconclusive. The terrible smell, screams and burning clothes can fit with both TII as a death camp and as a camp with another purpose. That Olzuck said he saw nothing of significance, at a camp the Nazis were doing their level best to hide its actual purpose, is not evidence of anything notable. Olzuck does not provide testimony that evidences an alternative purpose. The limited information Faurisson got, is inconclusive. While there is work still progress on der Status jรผdischer Zwangsarbeitslager und Zugfahrplรคne, it is a fact that the trains stopped for extended periods of locations of labour camps specifically for Jews. Evidence was posted of a description of such a transport. The stops were to repair carriages, change guards and allow other movement on the tracks. You admit to the lack of evidence, yet you still believe. Olzucks evidence does not prove what the function of the camp was. Zabecki was at great risk gathering information about the camp. We do not know if he only had a camera at that time and if it was his only safe opportunity to take a photo or not. Deniers try to censor dissent, from use of abuse and bullying, to bans. They lie and claim forgery based only on their biased opinion and beliefs. People fall out with each other and start mud slinging, which is not evidence of a hoax or conspiracy.
|
|
|
Post by ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐ด๐ป๐ธ on Oct 4, 2023 20:11:32 GMT
You admit to the lack of evidence, yet you still believe. As the probability of trains stopping for extended periods at Zwangarbeitlsager fรผr Juden and junctions to other labour camps is 100% and that Jews report going to those camps by train and passing through the junctions it is highly probable that this is the main scenario. There is always more evidence to be found which is why it was mentioned this is ongoing work. I believe nothing but find it highly probable this is the scenario. While that is partially true, Olszuk knew that the camps he spoke of was full of Jews, some who worked outside the camp. Olszuk knew what the camp wasn't and that wasn't a camp of mass murder. If it was it would be more than apparent due to the optics. The station master had plenty of opportunities to take photos of mass pyres, if not from the station from some secluded spot. He was a spy. Yet the worst time possible when the place is crawling with SS and Police he takes a photo of the uprising. This is not the place to discuss your banning from CODOH.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,773
|
Post by Nessie on Oct 5, 2023 8:41:51 GMT
The hoax works because you are prepared to accept what you cannot evidence, such as your thoughts on the probability of people getting off trains and the inconclusive evidence from Olszuck, to support your desired beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐ด๐ป๐ธ on Oct 5, 2023 20:52:00 GMT
The hoax works because you are prepared to accept what you cannot evidence, such as your thoughts on the probability of people getting off trains and the inconclusive evidence from Olszuck, to support your desired beliefs. Labour camps one with thousands of people working at one, people (Jews) saying they were transported by train there. Fplo documents state that trains stopped at the camp location for long periods of time; that is evidence. What the poster is demanding is evidence that a Jew say went to Kammiena on Fplo 675. Anyone using a train even today would not know the transport schedules for that train.
|
|