Nessie
๐ฆ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ (Nessies forum)
Posts: 4,740
|
Post by Nessie on Jun 7, 2022 12:00:43 GMT
When ever I list the evidence, which I have done for TII here, you just moan. You lie there is no evidence and then you moan when shown the evidence!!! How could any intelligent, well-informed individual โ especially one who genuinely had an MA in History, and really was an ex-police detective โ think that such non-incriminating photos of one camp were โ evidenceโ and โincontrovertible proofโ that 2.7 million โpeople were gassed en masseโ? How could someone matching that description, believe that by providing links of camp photos they had โshown the evidenceโ of the alleged genocide of 6 million Jews? ๐ฎ ๐คฆโโ๏ธ You are showing that you do not understand the relationship between evidence and proof.
1 - the aerial photo from 1944 is evidence of the condition the camp was left in by the Nazis. It corroborates;
- the Globocnik report to Himmler that the camp was left like a farm, with some buildings for a guard to keep people away. - the witness claims of planting over the area where the mass graves were located. - the witness claims and physical evidence that the camp site was subject to a cover-up to hide what had happened there as much as possible.
- how Belzec and Sobibor were left, meaning only those three AR camps were left in that condition.
- rectangular outlines in the Lazarette area corroborate witness claims of mass graves there.
- there is a large area of disturbed ground.
2 - the Kurt Franz photos corroborate;
- witness claims about camp staff and who was at the camp and Franz's dog, which is information only those who were there could know. - the cover-up of the camp, with excavators covering the site with earth, which is consistent with later archaeological finds of buried building remains.
3 - the 1945 site photos corroborate;
- witness claims about a cover-up - the presence of cremated remains and large areas of disturbed ground
- the grave robbing.
The photos are not evidence of gassings. They are primarily evidence of the Nazi cover-up of what they were doing at the camp and when someone covers their tracks, criminal activity can be inferred, which logically converges with the gassing claims. It is also evidence of the Nazis digging at the camp and leaving large areas of disturbed ground, which is consistent with and corroborates claims about mass graves.
|
|
|
|
Post by been_there on Jun 7, 2022 12:23:31 GMT
How could any intelligent, well-informed individual โ especially one who genuinely had an MA in History, and really was an ex-police detective โ think that such non-incriminating photos of one camp were โ evidenceโ and โincontrovertible proofโ that 2.7 million โpeople were gassed en masseโ? How could someone matching that description, believe that by providing links of camp photos they had โshown the evidenceโ of the alleged genocide of 6 million Jews? ๐ฎ ๐คฆโโ๏ธ You are showing that you do not understand the relationship between evidence and proof.
1 - the aerial photo from 1944 is evidence of the condition the camp was left in by the Nazis. It corroborates... [blah, blah, blah]
2 - the Kurt Franz photos corroborate; - witness claims about camp staff and who was at the camp and Franz's dog, which is information only those who were there could know. - the cover-up of the camp, with excavators covering the site with earth, which is consistent with later archaeological finds of buried building remains.
3 - the 1945 site photos corroborate; - witness claims about a cover-up - the presence of cremated remains and large areas of disturbed ground
- the grave robbing.
The photos are not evidence of gassings. They are primarily evidence of... [blah, blah, blah]
Yeah, they are NOT โ evidence of gassingsโ. Turnagain asked you to provide any โ evidenceโ and โ incontrovertible proofโ that 2.7 million โ people were gassed en masseโ? And yet you berated Turnagain, claiming he was ignoring the evidence of โmass-gassingsโ which you claimed to have provided him. When by your own admission you now concede you didnโt supply him with either โevidenceโ or โincontrovertable proofโ. You instead supplied him with evidence of other things, many that arenโt in contention. Can you see how insane that looks! |
|
Nessie
๐ฆ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ (Nessies forum)
Posts: 4,740
|
Post by Nessie on Jun 7, 2022 12:39:11 GMT
You are showing that you do not understand the relationship between evidence and proof.
1 - the aerial photo from 1944 is evidence of the condition the camp was left in by the Nazis. It corroborates... [blah, blah, blah]
2 - the Kurt Franz photos corroborate; - witness claims about camp staff and who was at the camp and Franz's dog, which is information only those who were there could know. - the cover-up of the camp, with excavators covering the site with earth, which is consistent with later archaeological finds of buried building remains.
3 - the 1945 site photos corroborate; - witness claims about a cover-up - the presence of cremated remains and large areas of disturbed ground
- the grave robbing.
The photos are not evidence of gassings. They are primarily evidence of... [blah, blah, blah]
Yeah, they are NOT โ evidence of gassingsโ. Turnagain asked you to provide any โ evidenceโ and โ incontrovertible proofโ that 2.7 million โ people were gassed en masseโ? And yet you berated Turnagain, claiming he was ignoring the evidence of โmass-gassingsโ which you claimed to have provided him. When by your own admission you now concede you didnโt supply him with either โevidenceโ or โincontrovertable proofโ. You instead supplied him with evidence of other things, many that arenโt in contention. Can you see how insane that looks! It looks insane to you, because you do not understand evidencing and proof. The photographic evidence was never presented, on its own, to Turnagain, as "โevidenceโ and โincontrovertible proofโ that 2.7 million โpeople were gassed en masseโ?". It is part of the evidence of what happened at TII.
The more evidence that logically converges to a single conclusion, the more accurate that conclusion is. The photographic evidence fits with witness claims about what happened at the camp regarding who was at the camp, a large amount of excavating and a cover-up. It does not evidence something else.
|
|
|
|
Post by been_there on Jun 7, 2022 14:28:10 GMT
Yeah, they are NOT โ evidence of gassingsโ. Turnagain asked you to provide any โ evidenceโ and โ incontrovertible proofโ that 2.7 million โ people were gassed en masseโ? And yet you berated Turnagain, claiming he was ignoring the evidence of โmass-gassingsโ which you claimed to have provided him. When by your own admission you now concede you didnโt supply him with either โevidenceโ or โincontrovertable proofโ. You instead supplied him with evidence of other things, many that arenโt in contention. Can you see how insane that looks! It looks insane to you, because you do not understand evidencing and proof. The photographic evidence was never presented, on its own, to Turnagain, as โevidenceโ and โincontrovertible proofโ that 2.7 million โpeople were gassed en masseโ?". It is part of the evidence of what happened at TII.
No, it isnโt. They are just photos of a camp. So this is yet another insane denial of reality from you that you will probably want to censor. The photos โ neither on their own nor with testimonyโ provide evidence of mass-gassings. The photos only show a camp existed. They do not confirm either mass-murder or transit or Jews. Only someone unable to think logically would think otherwise. |
|
Turnagain
โ๏ธ
๐๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐๐
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on Jun 7, 2022 16:14:20 GMT
Nessie displays his talent for dodging specific questions. Just post masses of unrelated facts/factoids and respond only to questions about the facts/factoids. Lies are excused and the rest is explained by, "The ever so clever but eeevul Narzis knew how to get 'er done". So it goes in holyhoax la-la land.
|
|
|
|
Post by been_there on Jun 7, 2022 17:02:13 GMT
Nessie displays his talent for dodging specific questions. Just post masses of unrelated facts/factoids and respond only to questions about the facts/factoids. Lies are excused and the rest is explained by, "The ever so clever but eeevul Narzis knew how to get 'er done". So it goes in holyhoax la-la land. She still doesnโt know what โ empirical evidenceโ means. And after all these years discussing that distinction. That says a lot! Plus, she doesnโt understand that all the photographic evidence for T2 fits both an extermination camp AND a transit camp. Whereas the empirical evidence only fits the latter. Itโs ONLY the non-credible/discredited lie-witness testimony that states definitively it was the former. And even then, some of the eye-witness testimony fits either both, or the latter. I really donโt see how anyone who genuinely had an MA in history and was an ex-police detective could not concede this. ๐ค |
|
Turnagain
โ๏ธ
๐๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐๐
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on Jun 7, 2022 18:31:29 GMT
been-there wrote:
I think that Nessie knows what "empirical evidence" is. I think he knows that he ain't got any, too.
|
|
Nessie
๐ฆ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ (Nessies forum)
Posts: 4,740
|
Post by Nessie on Jun 8, 2022 11:09:21 GMT
It looks insane to you, because you do not understand evidencing and proof. The photographic evidence was never presented, on its own, to Turnagain, as โevidenceโ and โincontrovertible proofโ that 2.7 million โpeople were gassed en masseโ?". It is part of the evidence of what happened at TII.
No, it isnโt. They are just photos of a camp. So this is yet another insane denial of reality from you that you will probably want to censor. The photos โ neither on their own nor with testimonyโ provide evidence of mass-gassings. I know the photos do not evidence mass gassings. I know the photos do not confirm mass murder or transit or Jews. I explained the photos evidence who was at the camp and the state it was left in. The photos are what is known as circumstantial evidence. When a murder takes place, it does not happen in isolation. It happens in a set of circumstances. Part of evidencing a murder so as to prove it happened, is to not just directly evidence the murder, but also to evidence the circumstances around the murder. For example. Someone is taken in a car to a warehouse, they are shot and then to try and cover up the crime, their body is burned and buried. The circumstantial evidence would be CCTV of that person in a car heading to the warehouse and the photos of their burnt body in its grave. The CCTV is like the documents recording mass transports to the AR camps and the photos are of the camp sites in 1945. The circumstantial evidence acts as verification, since the more evidence that something happened, the more accurate the conclusion. |
|
Nessie
๐ฆ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ (Nessies forum)
Posts: 4,740
|
Post by Nessie on Jun 8, 2022 11:26:13 GMT
Nessie displays his talent for dodging specific questions. Just post masses of unrelated facts/factoids and respond only to questions about the facts/factoids. Lies are excused and the rest is explained by, "The ever so clever but eeevul Narzis knew how to get 'er done". So it goes in holyhoax la-la land. She still doesnโt know what โ empirical evidenceโ means. And after all these years discussing that distinction. That says a lot! Empirical evidence; "Empirical evidence is the information obtained through observation and documentation of certain behaviour and patterns or through an experiment". History is determined by gathering evidence from witnesses, documents etc, so much of empirical evidencing does not apply. How does the photo evidence fit the transit camp claims? How so? Show what evidence you are referring to and how it fits TII being a transit camp. The circumstantial evidence of documents recording mass arrivals, AR recording the mass theft of personal property and the archaeological evidence of large areas of disturbed ground containing cremated remains, makes the claims of a death camp far more credible than the claims of a transit camp. The witness evidence of a few thousand people being selected to go to labour camps in Poland does not fit the transit camp claim, of hundreds of thousands of people being resettled in the east.
Your lack of any training is showing through.
|
|
Nessie
๐ฆ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ (Nessies forum)
Posts: 4,740
|
Post by Nessie on Jun 8, 2022 11:36:25 GMT
been-there wrote: I think that Nessie knows what "empirical evidence" is. I think he knows that he ain't got any, too. Much of the common definition of empirical evidence does not apply to the study of history. Empirical evidence relates more to the sciences than the study of history. History cannot be directly observed as it is the study of the past, though we know certain events are going to be important historical events when we see them happen, such as the invasion of Ukraine. History cannot be experimented on. History is determined by gathering evidence from witnesses, documents, physical items, photos, film, archaeology and then seeing how that evidence logically fits and converges. Criminal investigations are also about what happened in the past and also involve gathering evidence from witnesses etc. |
|
mrolonzo
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ญ๐ซ๐ข๐๐ข๐๐ง
Posts: 869
|
Post by mrolonzo on Jun 8, 2022 17:20:32 GMT
been-there wrote: I think that Nessie knows what "empirical evidence" is. I think he knows that he ain't got any, too. Much of the common definition of empirical evidence does not apply to the study of history. Empirical evidence relates more to the sciences than the study of history. History cannot be directly observed as it is the study of the past, though we know certain events are going to be important historical events when we see them happen, such as the invasion of Ukraine. History cannot be experimented on. History is determined by gathering evidence from witnesses, documents, physical items, photos, film, archaeology and then seeing how that evidence logically fits and converges. Criminal investigations are also about what happened in the past and also involve gathering evidence from witnesses etc. Why are you telling us this? |
|
Nessie
๐ฆ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ (Nessies forum)
Posts: 4,740
|
Post by Nessie on Jun 9, 2022 7:57:09 GMT
Because empirical evidence is more for science than history. Somebody who understood the study of history would know that.
|
|
mrolonzo
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ญ๐ซ๐ข๐๐ข๐๐ง
Posts: 869
|
Post by mrolonzo on Jun 9, 2022 16:00:43 GMT
Because empirical evidence is more for science than history. Somebody who understood the study of history would know that. Science information is history though so that doesn't work. And I studied history myself. Are you a female or a dude by the way? |
|
Nessie
๐ฆ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ (Nessies forum)
Posts: 4,740
|
Post by Nessie on Jun 9, 2022 16:30:23 GMT
Because empirical evidence is more for science than history. Somebody who understood the study of history would know that. Science information is history though so that doesn't work. And I studied history myself. Are you a female or a dude by the way? The methods for studying science and history have many differences, which you would know, if you had been trained in the study of history. I am a "dude". |
|
Turnagain
โ๏ธ
๐๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐๐
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on Jun 9, 2022 20:28:54 GMT
Nessie wrote:
When science disproves a version of history, that version of history is discarded. Except for the myth of the holyhoax. Is a brick pressure vessel of conventional construction possible? Nope. Does Nessie make excuses for the lying witnesses and make the unsupported claim that the gas chambers were possible? Yep, he damn sure does.
Is cremation an endothermic process? Yep. Does Nessie make excuses for the lying witnesses and claim that cremation is an exothermic process? Yep, he damn sure does.
Have all of the claims of the witnesses been hashed over hundreds of times? Yep and in every case, Nessie makes excuses for the liars and states that their claims are true. Which other historical fact requires laws to protect it from critical analysis? None that I'm aware of. No other historical myth is sacrosanct and not subject to scientific scrutiny.
|
|
