General discussion on the Holocaust Dec 27, 2021 14:05:23 GMT
Post by Nessie on Dec 27, 2021 14:05:23 GMT
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.
It is rare that one source of evidence is sufficient to prove something. It is more credible and reliable to have multiple sources of evidence to prove something.
The more evidence, the better the proof. On its own, the evidence of the Dresden pyres are not sufficient to prove the AR camp pyres.
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 Heritage® 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;
You have ignored my explanation of what is evidence and how evidence is used to prove something. Did you not understand?
Right, you excuse the lies of every one of the witnesses, every single, solitary witness, of "exaggerating", "using hyperbole" or being "mistaken" and you consider my disbelief of the bizarre and outrageous lies of the witnesses as a "logically flawed methodology". You've been asked on numerous occasions to present one witness to the alleged atrocities at Treblinka who tells a story that doesn't require your excuses and you've weasel dodged every single time. You simply repeat your laundry list and claim them to all be reliable.
You use a bizarre, logically flawed methodology to assess witness evidence, so your claim all the witness lied is not credible.
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.