Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,206
|
Post by Nessie on Dec 27, 2021 14:05:23 GMT
Nessie said: Uh-huh, unaltered photos and audio recordings are just soooooo rare that they're hardly ever used as evidence. Then we have the growth rings from trees and of course both forensic and genetic proof of endless assertions. PYRE pฤซr noun 1. A heap of combustibles for burning a corpse as a funeral rite. 2. A pile of combustibles. 3. A pile or heap of wood or other combustible materials for burning a dead body; a funeral pile. The American Heritageยฎ Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition. Please show me the heap of wood or other combustible material at Dresden. Looking at the photo I can see evidence of cribbing under the I-beams but no evidence of a pile of wood. Like the witnesses to AR camp pyres said, not much wood was needed to set the bodies alight. There are clear original black and white photos here, showing there was a small layer of wood below the metal rails; rarehistoricalphotos.com/pile-bodies-awaits-cremation-bombing-dresden-1945/You have ignored my explanation of what is evidence and how evidence is used to prove something. Did you not understand? You fail to take into account the well known issues with ALL witnesses. You fail to understand the difference between credibility, reliability and truthfulness and that a witness can be both incredible, unreliable but truthful at the same time. You ignore that academics and courts use evidence to establish truthfulness.
|
|
|
Post by been_there on Dec 27, 2021 14:55:02 GMT
โYou fail to understand that a witness can be both incredible, unreliable but truthful at the same time.โ ๐
๐คฃ๐๐ ๐คฆโโ๏ธ What we have here is yet another example of usage of the reductio ad absurdum logical fallacy. ๐คฆโโ๏ธ๐คช
Reductio ad absurdum means "reducing to an absurdityโ. It is similar to the straw man fallacy, as people use it when they can not refute the actual opposing position. Instead they either misrepresent it, or reduce it to an absurd extreme.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,206
|
Post by Nessie on Dec 27, 2021 15:09:57 GMT
Why has this been moved to "gibberish"? It is a crucial point about witness evidence that no denier/revisionist understands. I was, yet again, explaining to Turnagain about witness evidence; rodoh.info/post/2196"You fail to take into account the well known issues with ALL witnesses. You fail to understand the difference between credibility, reliability and truthfulness and that a witness can be both incredible, unreliable but truthful at the same time. You ignore that academics and courts use evidence to establish truthfulness." It is possible for someone to describe something in a way that makes it appear unbelievable, for that witness to be unreliable in their testimony and still be truthful. For example, the witness descriptions of gassings, mass graves and pyres. What they describe, prima facie, appears unbelievable, that the Germans would do such a thing and the scale of what is described is of a size that is almost unimaginable. The witnesses, who are often describing events from years previously, prove to be unreliable in the way they describe what they saw, giving exaggerated estimations, making obvious mistakes and describing events that cannot have happened as described when taken literally. BUT, there is evidence from sources independent of those witnesses, that back up what they say and corroborate them, such that we know they are being truthful and there were mass gassings, graves and pyres.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,206
|
Post by Nessie on Dec 27, 2021 16:20:55 GMT
Something that is clearly not understood about witness evidence is that it is possible for someone to describe something in a way that makes it appear unbelievable, for that witness to be unreliable in their testimony and still be truthful.
For example, the witness descriptions of gassings, mass graves and pyres. What they describe, prima facie, appears unbelievable, that the Germans would do such a thing and the scale of what is described is of a size that is almost unimaginable. The witnesses, who are often describing events from years previously, prove to be unreliable in the way they describe what they saw, giving exaggerated estimations, making obvious mistakes and describing events that cannot have happened as described when taken literally. BUT, there is evidence from sources independent of those witnesses, that back up what they say and corroborate them, such that we know they are being truthful and there were mass gassings, graves and pyres.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,206
|
Post by Nessie on Dec 30, 2021 9:44:23 GMT
... But here is the one consistency: do you notice how he doesnโt mind that his utter bullshit is exposed as such?He keeps on repeating the exact same nonsense even after it has been exposed and completely refuted.... I point out your reliance on arguments from logical fallacies and point out that historians, the police and lawyers use evidence, not argument to establish what happened in the past. It is you who has been debunked, but you keep on repeating the same nonsense, knowing you are using logical fallacies. Why do you think logical fallacies can be used to prove what happened in the past?
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,206
|
Post by Nessie on Dec 30, 2021 9:54:18 GMT
Nessie wrote: Hindu funeral pyres are a fact. They are employed thousands of times per day and have been so employed for thousands of years. Nessie's alleged German method was used for only for a year or so by the eeevul Narzis at Sobibor and Treblinka during the 1940s. Why do the Hindus require 300-400 lbs of wood for a cremation while the Germans required only some minor kindling or camp detritus to completely cremate some 860,000 cadavers? You claim to have answered such questions but of course you haven't. Hindus are ceremonially cremating one body at a time, to return the ashes to relatives. The Nazis were cremating hundreds, even thousands of decomposing bodies at a time, to then bury the cremains, without bothering what state those cremains were in. It stands to reason that economy of scale, means less wood per body in a mass pyre than an individual one. Anyone who has ever used a BBQ, understands how the pyre on a grate works. Only you do not. You have been told that on many occasions, you pretend you have not and then dishonestly accuse me of not tackling your questions. You have provided no contemporaneous evidence to prove all the witnesses lied. Jewish Sonderkommando, Nazi and local Poles all witnessed in one way or another, months of cremations. You have no evidence they all lied. Gley said that wood was used to start the pyres, then the bodies would burn themselves. Numerous other witnesses speak to the same thing. According to your logic, because we do not know how the Mayans built their pyramids, those pyramids do not exist and, if a witness cannot describe how a gun works, they cannot be a truthful witness to a shooting. It does not matter that we do not know how something happened. There are many crimes that we do not now what actually happened, but we do know a crime was committed. It is logical to say that it something is proved by the evidence to have happened, then it was possible. You are unable to counter that logic, so you repeat your mantras.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,206
|
Post by Nessie on Dec 30, 2021 14:30:02 GMT
It is very arrogant of those here who claim that there was not enough wood for the German pyre cremations, and to then claim therefore they would not work. The assumption by revisionists is that their calculations as to what would happen or could be achieved are 100% accurate and take everything into consideration, and since they cannot work out how the pyres would work, therefore no one can.
It is logical to say that since the German pyre cremations are evidenced to have happened, therefore they happened, we just do not know precisely how they worked. It is illogical to claim that because someone does not think, based on their calculations, the pyres could work, therefore they could not work, therefore all the evidence is lies.
|
|
Turnagain
โ๏ธ
๐๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐๐
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on Dec 30, 2021 16:14:39 GMT
Nessie wrote:
You've been asked on numerous occasions to show some proof of your claims. You invariably reply that you have "evidence" which corroborates (confirms) the statements given by the alleged witnesses. The fact is that no, you haven't any proof of your claims but you continue to weasel dodge that answer with your mantras about "evidence". That is what gets sent to the "gibberish" department amongst your other weasel dodges.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,206
|
Post by Nessie on Dec 30, 2021 16:37:24 GMT
Nessie wrote: You've been asked on numerous occasions to show some proof of your claims. You invariably reply that you have "evidence" which corroborates (confirms) the statements given by the alleged witnesses. The fact is that no, you haven't any proof of your claims but you continue to weasel dodge that answer with your mantras about "evidence". That is what gets sent to the "gibberish" department amongst your other weasel dodges. The proof comes from the evidence. I show you the evidence that I can link to and explain how that evidence proves the claim. You then complain about washing lists and ask to see the proof again. So it goes round in circles. I give you the benefit of the doubt, but it is clear that no matter how much evidencing and proof is explained to you, you just do not understand.
To me, and indeed most people, evidencing and proof is simple. Evidence comes from eyewitnesses, documents, physical items, forensics, archaeology, photos, film and circumstances. That is what historians and the courts accept as evidence. Evidence is not the arguments you use, such as because you cannot work out how a pyre would work with not much wood, therefore it cannot work. Historians and courts do not use that form of argument.
Where there is evidence from multiple, independent of each other sources, such as two separate witnesses, or a witness and a document, or a document and a photo, or a witness and an archaeological find, or other combination thereof, that is then proof. It is very rare for one single piece of evidence to be sufficient to prove something. It is more normal for proof to come from multiple forms of evidence. The proof of what happened inside the AR camps comes from multiple witnesses, documents, archaeology, forensics, physical finds at the camps, photos and circumstantial evidence. All of those sources of evidence together prove what happened.
As I said, the proof comes from the evidence.
You reject all of that evidence, since it contradicts what you want to believe, in favour of argument. You like the arguments put forward by the likes of Eric Hunt and Carlo Mattogno, such as "how could all those people be cremated with not much wood?" and "what about the witnesses who say they went to Treblinka and then left?". You think those arguments have merit. But they do not, as they are based on arguments from logical fallacies and misreading of the evidence.
|
|
Turnagain
โ๏ธ
๐๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐๐
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on Dec 30, 2021 16:48:06 GMT
Nessie wrote:
But not from your spurious "evidence". For example, witness A makes an obviously false statement. You excuse the lie by claiming that the lie was just an "exaggeration, etc.". You then go on to claim that unverified "evidence" confirms the lie that you've just excused. It's a repetitive and tiresome technique.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,206
|
Post by Nessie on Dec 30, 2021 16:59:21 GMT
Nessie wrote: But not from your spurious "evidence". You have decided the evidence is spurious, because it states what you do not want to hear. For example, according to you, everyone who worked at TII is spurious. When I ask you for a witness who worked the camp who you cannot produce anyone. Instead, you produce witnesses who did not work at the camp, who you cannot prove were even there and who claim it was a death camp. It is those witnesses who are genuinely spurious. You claim the archaeological studies are spurious, but that is because the archaeological findings are not want you want to hear. So you think up spurious excuses to dismiss that evidence, such as borehole samples were represented by drawn diagrams, rather than photos. You labour under the false impression that truthful witnesses do not exaggerate, make mistakes etc and that only lying witnesses exaggerate, make mistake etc. I verify the witness claims by checking what they said against the other evidence. For example, the witnesses speak to mass arrivals at the camp. That is verified by documents recording mass arrivals. That is how I know the witnesses are not lying about mass arrivals. That some witnesses claim far more people arrived than the documents say, merely means the witness has exaggerated, it does not mean he has lied.
|
|
Turnagain
โ๏ธ
๐๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐๐
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on Dec 30, 2021 17:19:44 GMT
Nessie wrote:
You take as gospel the unverified statements of people who have a vested interest in the holyhoax. It's like someone declaring that they've just located the archaeological find of the century. When asked to show proof of that claim it's simply ignored. They then strut about claiming that their claim is valid. I'm simply asking for some proof of their claims. Nessie declares that to be unreasonable. So it goes in holyhoax la-la land.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,206
|
Post by Nessie on Jan 1, 2022 9:14:09 GMT
This could be the reason why: Oscar Strawczynski said: It is likely that the victims at Treblinka II were disposed of under the 14f program and others disabled due to typhus. The witness you quote states TII was a death camp. It should surely raise alarm bells that you are wrong, when you have to quote a witness who states the opposite to what you are claiming.
|
|
Turnagain
โ๏ธ
๐๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐๐
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on Jan 10, 2022 21:39:09 GMT
Nessie spews his usual line of unsupported claptrap.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,206
|
Post by Nessie on Jan 12, 2022 20:33:16 GMT
What were the Nazis burying at TII? No evidence of bodies. Asking directed questions is what every UFO nerd does with the claim, "what are they doing in our skies". Like the UFOs it is all just speculation and boy do you speculate with gustos of great imagination. Please explain, with reference to the archaeological surveys of TII, how what was found, is not evidence of bodies.
|
|