Turnagain
โ๏ธ
๐๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐๐
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on Jan 3, 2022 15:34:14 GMT
Well said, been-there. Cold fusion comes to mind as a classical case of a disproven theory. It's not a fallacy that a brick building of conventional construction can't withstand 3+atm of pressure without collapsing but here's Nessie, dragging out all of his old chestnuts. Neither is it a fallacy of any sort that bodies can't be cremated using the fat from the cadavers as fuel. The absurdity of such claims doesn't seem to shake Nessie's quasi-religious beliefs in the holyhoax, though. So it goes in holyhoax la-la land.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,210 
|
Post by Nessie on Jan 3, 2022 15:36:11 GMT
...You accuse each Jewish witness of being a liar, but you present no evidence to back up your claims. ...You produce no documentary or other evidence to back up your claims. You then claim your Nazi clients have been coerced into lying, but they admit to the gassings and make no mention of being coerced. If historians or the police find that a claim about a certain event is false, they then go back to the start and reinvestigate to find out what did happen. Only revisionists think proving what did not happen is sufficient. This reply is literally nonsense! Turnagain has just claimed he does not need to find out what happened. You have claimed that asking what happened is not logical!!! You have used a false analogy. The c2.5 million Jews historians claim to have been gassed have not turned up anywhere else. You have claimed that various people have tunred up alive and well, but you have failed to find anyone who has turned up alive and well who states he or she was inside the A-B Kremas or the AR camps and something other than gassings took palce there. We are talking about the evidenced allegation that c2.5 million Jews were gassed. If you claim they were not, of course you have to evidence and prove what did happen. This is not a trivial matter, where it does not matter what did happen instead of mass gassings. You do not use an academically accepted method for evidencing and so proving something did not happen. You use arguments from logical fallacies. That is why academics such as Rudolph has been rejected by the academic community. He fell for the logical fallacies used by denier/revisionists. If someone is claimed to have killed another person, but there is no eyewitness or other evidence to prove that claim, but that other person is missing, then enquiry continues to find them, and once found, then there is a proven alternative to them being killed. If someone is accused of killing another, they can prove their innocence with an alibi, which would prove they were not at the place or time of the murder and they were somewhere else, doing something else. The alibi is an alternative. Only Holocaust denier/revisionists think it is acceptable to claim no mass gassings and then it does not matter what happened to all of those people. Everyone else wants to know. |
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,210
|
Post by Nessie on Jan 3, 2022 15:43:17 GMT
Well said, been-there. Cold fusion comes to mind as a classical case of a disproven theory. It's not a fallacy that a brick building of conventional construction can't withstand 3+atm of pressure without collapsing but here's Nessie, dragging out all of his old chestnuts. Neither is it a fallacy of any sort that bodies can't be cremated using the fat from the cadavers as fuel. The absurdity of such claims doesn't seem to shake Nessie's quasi-religious beliefs in the holyhoax, though. So it goes in holyhoax la-la land. You are using a false analogy again. Cold fusion is comparable to a boy cycling to the moon, since there is no evidence it is possible. There is no evidence that the Nazis did actually use a vacuum generating 3+ atm of pressure. You just made that up as a strawman fallacy. What the witnesses said was that air was pumped out so the people suffocated. You do not need to create a vacuum to reduce the air inside an enclosed space so that people would suffocate, you just need to reduce the amount of air so that there is less than 6% oxygen. Just packing people inside an enclosed chamber and gradually teh amount of oxygen reduces so they would suffocate, without having to pump any air out.
The gas chambers, mass graves and pyres were evidenced to have happened, by multiple corroborating sources.You cannot evidence what did happen, so logically, your misgivings and arguments are wrong.
|
|
Turnagain
โ๏ธ
๐๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐๐
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on Jan 3, 2022 16:30:02 GMT
Nessie wrote:
I wasn't talking about negative pressure from a vacuum. Most of the alleged eyewitnesses claimed that the gas chambers were hermetically sealed. It's generally accepted that the CO was produced by a captured Soviet tank engine. That would be the 27 liter M-5 or an engine that was much larger. Running the exhaust from that engine into a hermetically sealed 142.5 cubic meter space for 20 minutes would raise the pressure inside the chamber to over 3 atm. That isn't a supposition. That the brick building couldn't withstand such pressure is a fact, not a fallacy argument.
As far as a vacuum, I've shown numerous videos of collapsing rail cars, semi-trailers and even silos. The effects of even partial vacuum have been filmed numerous times and I've posted some of those videos. A total vacuum would result in 1 atm of pressure. You seem to have a problem comprehending that. The effects would be the same for internal pressure let alone 3+ atm.
You've made excuses for the eyewitnesses who claimed that the gas chambers were hermetically sealed. So far your best effort has been that the witnesses just didn't notice the vents required to relieve the pressure. I can find nothing about pressure differentials ever being brought up at any of the holyhoax trials. You have nothing but excuses for the pressures involved with the alleged gas chambers.
|
|
Turnagain
โ๏ธ
๐๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐๐
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on Jan 3, 2022 16:43:52 GMT
Nessie wrote:
Rajchman claimed that the air was pumped out of the gas chamber as a matter of course. Apparently to make room for the CO. He claimed that the Germans experimented with just suffocating the Jews with the vacuum but found it unsatisfactory. In any event, he makes no claim that the air was pumped from the gas chambers as the lethal agent.
Since oxygen makes up 21% of the atmosphere, reducing it to less than 6% would require reducing the atmosphere inside the gas chambers by over 70%. A 70% vacuum should collapse the brick chambers quite nicely.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,210
|
Post by Nessie on Jan 3, 2022 16:47:36 GMT
Nessie wrote: I wasn't talking about negative pressure from a vacuum. Most of the alleged eyewitnesses claimed that the gas chambers were hermetically sealed. It's generally accepted that the CO was produced by a captured Soviet tank engine. That would be the 27 liter M-5 or an engine that was much larger. Running the exhaust from that engine into a hermetically sealed 142.5 cubic meter space for 20 minutes would raise the pressure inside the chamber to over 3 atm. That isn't a supposition. That the brick building couldn't withstand such pressure is a fact, not a fallacy argument. As far as a vacuum, I've shown numerous videos of collapsing rail cars, semi-trailers and even silos. The effects of even partial vacuum have been filmed numerous times and I've posted some of those videos. A total vacuum would result in 1 atm of pressure. You seem to have a problem comprehending that. The effects would be the same for internal pressure let alone 3+ atm. You've made excuses for the eyewitnesses who claimed that the gas chambers were hermetically sealed. So far your best effort has been that the witnesses just didn't notice the vents required to relieve the pressure. I can find nothing about pressure differentials ever being brought up at any of the holyhoax trials. You have nothing but excuses for the pressures involved with the alleged gas chambers.
That means either the witnesses made a mistake about how the chambers worked, or they lied about the existence of chambers. The best way to establish which is correct, is to evidence, what did happen?
|
|
|
|
Post by been_there on Jan 3, 2022 16:56:42 GMT
You have claimed that asking what happened is not logical!!! Holy moly!!! The level of projection and amazingly stupid miscomprehension reaches new depths. I have not claimed any such thing. ๐คฆโโ๏ธ |
|
Turnagain
โ๏ธ
๐๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐๐
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on Jan 3, 2022 17:30:11 GMT
Nessie wrote:
No, the best way to determine if the gas chambers existed is for you to come up with a couple of witnesses who describe a functional, workable gas chamber. The witnesses you've produced so far are obvious liars.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,210
|
Post by Nessie on Jan 3, 2022 17:38:06 GMT
You have claimed that asking what happened is not logical!!! Holy moly!!! The level of projection and amazingly stupid miscomprehension reaches new depths. I have not claimed any such thing. ๐คฆโโ๏ธ You have not specifically said it is illogical, but you are making illogical arguments that it is my job to evidence what happened, not yours here; rodoh.info/post/2379/threadand that asking you to evidence what happened is reversing the burden of proof here; rodoh.info/post/2452/threadI am sure in the past, on old RODOH, you did claim it was illogical. You have certainly argued on many times that me asking "what did happen?" and "where did they go?" are the wrong questions. |
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,210
|
Post by Nessie on Jan 3, 2022 17:39:28 GMT
Nessie wrote: No, the best way to determine if the gas chambers existed is for you to come up with a couple of witnesses who describe a functional, workable gas chamber. The witnesses you've produced so far are obvious liars. In this thread, we assume there were no gas chambers and look for evidence of what did happen?
So far, there has been no evidence presented, merely daft excuses that deniers do not need to evidence their claims.
|
|
Agandaur
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ญ๐ซ๐ข๐๐ข๐๐ง
Posts: 137
|
Post by Agandaur on Jan 3, 2022 20:32:21 GMT
Nessie wrote: No, the best way to determine if the gas chambers existed is for you to come up with a couple of witnesses who describe a functional, workable gas chamber. The witnesses you've produced so far are obvious liars. In this thread, we assume there were no gas chambers and look for evidence of what did happen?
So far, there has been no evidence presented, merely daft excuses that deniers do not need to evidence their claims.
The fact that this poster has ignored the information presented in other threads is his concern. No need to post and disparage people who disagree by calling them deniers. |
|
|
|
Post by been_there on Jan 4, 2022 6:32:33 GMT
Holy moly!!! The level of projection and amazingly stupid miscomprehension reaches new depths. I have not claimed any such thing. ๐คฆโโ๏ธ You have not specifically said it is illogical, but you... [snipped โ dishonest and goalpost-moving, illogical avoidance]I am sure in the past, on old RODOH, you did claim it was illogical. [blah, blah, blah]Wow! He โbelievesโ and falsely clams with no evidence โI am sure in the past, on old RODOH, you did claim it was illogicalโ.
THE REALITY: I didnโt claim that, and I donโt claim that now.
His logical approach on this point โ if it were to be consistent โ would be now to demand I provide evidence that I didnโt โclaimโ that. And if I canโt provide evidence, he will conclude that proves I did claim it was illogical. ๐๐คฆโโ๏ธ This shows the level of literally stupid illogicality this person is operating with. That is not an insult, but a demonstrable fact. I suggest it also shows the levels of dishonest discussion this person has no qualms about sinking to. I think it demonstrates that in reality he is NOT interested in discovering โwhat actually happenedโ in Aktion Reinhardt camps. That appears to be a dishonest pose and in reality he is only interested in defending a discredited, empirically refuted โbeliefโ. I suggest this reply above โcombined with his other false arguments โ shows that to defend that belief-system, no dishonest tactics are off-limits for him. |
|
|
|
Post by Sandhurst on Jan 4, 2022 7:02:24 GMT
That is his loss, we are not here to convince a hoaxer. We put information and suggestions forward for people to peruse. Nessie is predictable in that we know what he will say, he has said nothing new for years.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,210
|
Post by Nessie on Jan 5, 2022 9:20:42 GMT
In this thread, we assume there were no gas chambers and look for evidence of what did happen?
So far, there has been no evidence presented, merely daft excuses that deniers do not need to evidence their claims.
The fact that this poster has ignored the information presented in other threads is his concern. No need to post and disparage people who disagree by calling them deniers. No evidence from eyewitnesses, documents or any other source of evidence pertaining to the AR camps or A-B Kremas has been presented.
In this thread, evidence is requested from those people who deny that gassings took place, to prove what actually happened?
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,210
|
Post by Nessie on Jan 5, 2022 9:22:19 GMT
You have not specifically said it is illogical, but you... [snipped โ dishonest and goalpost-moving, illogical avoidance]I am sure in the past, on old RODOH, you did claim it was illogical. [blah, blah, blah]Wow! He โbelievesโ and falsely clams with no evidence โI am sure in the past, on old RODOH, you did claim it was illogicalโ.
THE REALITY: I didnโt claim that, and I donโt claim that now.
His logical approach on this point โ if it were to be consistent โ would be now to demand I provide evidence that I didnโt โclaimโ that. And if I canโt provide evidence, he will conclude that proves I did claim it was illogical. ๐๐คฆโโ๏ธ This shows the level of literally stupid illogicality this person is operating with. That is not an insult, but a demonstrable fact. I suggest it also shows the levels of dishonest discussion this person has no qualms about sinking to. I think it demonstrates that in reality he is NOT interested in discovering โwhat actually happenedโ in Aktion Reinhardt camps. That appears to be a dishonest pose and in reality he is only interested in defending a discredited, empirically refuted โbeliefโ. I suggest this reply above โcombined with his other false arguments โ shows that to defend that belief-system, no dishonest tactics are off-limits for him. How about you stop nitpicking over semantics and interpretations of what I have said, and you show an interest in discovering "what actually happened?" |
|
