|
|
Post by mrolonzo on Jun 10, 2022 7:33:02 GMT
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". This is a ridiculous comment. Science and history are different only in so far as the logical processes are different because they're dealing with different elements and phenomena. They're both fundamentally following the same logic. |
|
Nessie
🦕
𝐕𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐬 𝗮𝗱𝗷𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿 (Nessies forum)
Posts: 3,255
|
Post by Nessie on Jun 10, 2022 7:33:33 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. You interpret the witness evidence in a way that ignores how people normally speak and describe things, as a means to support your logically flawed argument from incredulity. The only way to accurately determine what happened in the past is by evidence, and you do not have any evidence, so you think up stupid excuses to dismiss the evidence for mass gassings. |
|
|
|
Post by mrolonzo on Jun 10, 2022 7:33:38 GMT
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". This is a ridiculous comment. Science and history are different only in so far as the logical processes are different because they're dealing with different elements and phenomena. They're both fundamentally following the same logic. Which you would know if you'd studied either history or science. |
|
|
|
Post by mrolonzo on Jun 10, 2022 7:34:17 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. You interpret the witness evidence in a way that ignores how people normally speak and describe things, as a means to support your logically flawed argument from incredulity. The only way to accurately determine what happened in the past is by evidence, and you do not have any evidence, so you think up stupid excuses to dismiss the evidence for mass gassings. People do not normally make fantastic claims about real events. |
|
Nessie
🦕
𝐕𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐬 𝗮𝗱𝗷𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿 (Nessies forum)
Posts: 3,255
|
Post by Nessie on Jun 10, 2022 7:37:47 GMT
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". This is a ridiculous comment. Science and history are different only in so far as the logical processes are different because they're dealing with different elements and phenomena. They're both fundamentally following the same logic. I can work out, from the information provided, how the Nazis managed to build large gas chambers, dig large pits and cremate on pyres. Just because you cannot, does not mean it did not happen.
|
|
Nessie
🦕
𝐕𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐬 𝗮𝗱𝗷𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿 (Nessies forum)
Posts: 3,255
|
Post by Nessie on Jun 10, 2022 7:40:07 GMT
You interpret the witness evidence in a way that ignores how people normally speak and describe things, as a means to support your logically flawed argument from incredulity. The only way to accurately determine what happened in the past is by evidence, and you do not have any evidence, so you think up stupid excuses to dismiss the evidence for mass gassings. People do not normally make fantastic claims about real events. You say that as if there has been experimentation on witness evidence, so, since you are so into science, how about you link to the studies that prove your claim. |
|
|
|
Post by mrolonzo on Jun 10, 2022 7:40:22 GMT
This is a ridiculous comment. Science and history are different only in so far as the logical processes are different because they're dealing with different elements and phenomena. They're both fundamentally following the same logic. I can work out, from the information provided, how the Nazis managed to build large gas chambers, dig large pits and cremate on pyres. Just because you cannot, does not mean it did not happen.
Who said you can work it out? Where is your technical study? |
|
Nessie
🦕
𝐕𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐬 𝗮𝗱𝗷𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿 (Nessies forum)
Posts: 3,255
|
Post by Nessie on Jun 10, 2022 7:47:33 GMT
I can work out, from the information provided, how the Nazis managed to build large gas chambers, dig large pits and cremate on pyres. Just because you cannot, does not mean it did not happen.
Who said you can work it out? Where is your technical study? What is complicated about working out how to drop Zyklon B into a secured room? Or digging large pits with excavators? Or pumping exhaust fumes into a secured room? Or burning bodies on pyres? Only revisionists cannot work out how it was done. |
|
|
|
Post by Ulios on Jun 10, 2022 7:54:06 GMT
What is complicated about working out how to drop Zyklon B into a secured room? Not hard but would not outgas well enough to kill as described. |
|
|
|
Post by Turnagain on Jun 10, 2022 8:15:17 GMT
Nessie wrote:
Multiple witnesses SAID that the gas chambers were "hermetically sealed". That was also claimed in testimony under oath. I "interpret" nothing. Those are statements taken from court records and books written by the alleged witnesses. YOU are the one who claims that they were "exaggerating" or using "emotive language". YOU are the one who "interprets"/makes excuses for what they wrote and testified and makes excuses for the lies that were SAID/WRITTEN.
Nessie does that for every facet of the hoax from hermetically sealed gas chambers, giant mass graves, exhumation of whole cadavers by clamshell, cremation by exothermic means to the reburial of the alleged cremains. Nessie makes excuses for the multiple lies in every facet and then claims that anyone who takes exception to his excusing the lies of the alleged eyewitnesses is "arguing from incredulity". Right, as if anyone who doesn't accept his excuses for the lies is simply incredulous.
|
|
