The Dresden Pyres

Nessie wrote:

You have been asked to produce some evidence that the cadavers at Dresden were actually cremated. You reply with the suspect photos and the quote from the official that cadavers were cremated. Rinse and repeat. Where is your evidence of cremated or even charred cadavers? That's bodies that have been cremated or at least partially burned. IOW, do you have any evidence for the cremation process? Do you have any evidence except the dicky photos? Photos of the pile of bodies seem legitimate. The smoking bodies and the photo showing some flames, not so much.

IOW, you have no evidence to back up your assertion that the statement from the official is connected to the photos you've shown. You simply say, here's an official statement concerning cremations and here's a photo of a pile of bodies so the statement must be about the pile of bodies. There's no specific connection between the statement and the pile of cadavers. You state an opinion that it's "highly unlikely" that the official isn't talking about the pile of cadavers. A claim from you that something is "highly unlikely" is the ultimate irony.

As a person who claims to be a retired police investigator your inability to either reply to, or even understand, simple, straightforward questions repeatedly put to you does not inspire confidence in your claims.

Let me try and spell it out for you.
Turnagain just asked you this simple question: “Do you have any evidence except the dicky photos?”

Do you understand the word “except”?

If you do, now look at your answer “the evidence I have is; 1 - the photos”.

Can you now see that it is a clearly stupid answer.

Do you understand now why it is a literally stupid answer?

————————-

Secondly, Turnagain wrote to you: “you have no evidence to back up your assertion that the statement from the official is connected to the photos you've shown”.

So what do you do to further the argument? Do you provide evidence? No, you don’t.
 
Turnagain explained: “You simply say, here's an official statement concerning cremations and here's a photo of a pile of bodies so the statement must be about the pile of bodies”. He explains to you that is an opinion not ‘evidence’.

Yet you reply: “both show cremations”. !!! 😮🤦‍♂️🙄

But the photos OBVIOUSLY  do NOT show ‘cremation’. Turnagain has already established that fact to you. 

Do you really not yet understand the difference between ‘cremation’ and ‘carbonisation’ 🤦‍♂️

This I suggest to you is the problem, you not only don’t understand simple distinctions and arguments, but you appear to not be able to understand simple words.



How to have a meaningful discussion with someone who does not understand simple words?

I doubt the claim of burning to ashes.

If charring is considered cremation then I guess so. The idea of course is to prevent disease so charring would do, a slow burn over a good period of time should cook off the flesh. Still needs a good quantity of fuel. Cattle cremations involves using straw or hay which kills the disease. Rest of the beast is thrown into a rather large ditch.

In that case, let's see your evidence that the pile of bodies in the Altmarkt is connected to the document about cremations. 

Nessie wrote:
Nope, you gave your opinion. There is no direct connection between the document stating that bodies were cremated and the bodies shown in the photos. You are claiming that Occam's razor shows that the two are connected. My opinion is that Occam's razor shows that the photos of smoking bodies and the pile of cadavers showing a limited amount of flame are forgeries. Both are opinions. Take your pick.