Nessie
âď¸
đđđ§đđŤđđđ˘đĽđ˘đŹ đŽđąđˇđđąđśđ°đŽđđźđż
Posts: 5,210
|
Post by Nessie on Jan 24, 2022 18:40:51 GMT
The argument that the Nazis digging pits, building gas chambers and mass pyres are the equivalent of a boy cycling to the moon, is a false analogy. It was well within their engineering and construction abilities to do such.
The argument that because we do not know how they dug the pits, built the chambers and set the pyres, therefore they are physically impossible, is a non sequitur. The conclusion does not necessarily follow the premise.
The argument that the way witnesses describe what they saw can be interpreted as physically impossible, does not therefore mean they are lying. Again, the conclusion does not exclusively follow from the premise.
Fact is, what is evidence to happened, happened, and denier disbelief is not a logical or rational argument it did not happen.
|
|
|
Post by Ulios on Jan 24, 2022 18:58:21 GMT
The argument that the Nazis digging pits, building gas chambers and mass pyres are the equivalent of a boy cycling to the moon, is a false analogy. It was well within their engineering and construction abilities to do such.
The argument that because we do not know how they dug the pits, built the chambers and set the pyres, therefore they are physically impossible, is a non sequitur. The conclusion does not necessarily follow the premise. The argument that the way witnesses describe what they saw can be interpreted as physically impossible, does not therefore mean they are lying. Again, the conclusion does not exclusively follow from the premise.
Fact is, what is evidence to happened, happened, and denier disbelief is not a logical or rational argument it did not happen.
You are just repeating yourself day after day. You are assuming they did these things, when the science says they are impossible. Constantly repeating yourself does little credit.
|
|
Nessie
âď¸
đđđ§đđŤđđđ˘đĽđ˘đŹ đŽđąđˇđđąđśđ°đŽđđźđż
Posts: 5,210
|
Post by Nessie on Jan 24, 2022 19:28:54 GMT
The argument that the Nazis digging pits, building gas chambers and mass pyres are the equivalent of a boy cycling to the moon, is a false analogy. It was well within their engineering and construction abilities to do such.
The argument that because we do not know how they dug the pits, built the chambers and set the pyres, therefore they are physically impossible, is a non sequitur. The conclusion does not necessarily follow the premise. The argument that the way witnesses describe what they saw can be interpreted as physically impossible, does not therefore mean they are lying. Again, the conclusion does not exclusively follow from the premise.
Fact is, what is evidence to happened, happened, and denier disbelief is not a logical or rational argument it did not happen.
You are just repeating yourself day after day. You are assuming they did these things, when the science says they are impossible. Constantly repeating yourself does little credit. The denier mantra is that the Germans digging pits, building gas chambers and setting mass pyres are physically impossible. Yet the Germans managed to build the biggest defences, the best weapons and send rockets to the UK. That means, what is being claimed, is not physically impossible. It was well within German engineering and construction capabilities.
|
|
Turnagain
âď¸
đđźđťđźđżđŽđđđ
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on Jan 25, 2022 3:31:45 GMT
Nessie wrote:
A hole/pit can be scratched out of sandy soil with bare hands and at least with a pick and shovel. Nessie says a pit is a pit so the Germans could dig pits. The Germans could build gas chambers but couldn't build one of brick that would withstand multiple atm of pressure. There are in fact numerous gas chambers in the US for the purpose of ripening fruit with ethylene and for fumigants. Nessie says a gas chamber is a gas chamber and makes no distinctions between any of them. Same with pyres. Pyres are pyres whether they contain sufficient fuel to completely cremate a body or not.
In Nessie's bizarre holyhoax la-la land the entire field of geography could be summed up as, "The world is a big place". Were the graves at Treblinka dug with bare hands, picks and shovels or machinery? If it was machinery, what kind of machinery? Not just the make and model but was it a front-end loader? A backhoe? Cat and a can? A dragline? If the ex was hauled away from the excavation, what hauled it? Nessie acts as though all of those simple questions are arcane knowledge known only to the dead cognoscenti and lost to the mists of time.
What Nessie is actually trying to do is hide the impossibilities claimed by the alleged witnesses and himself. Brick pressure vessels don't exist so Nessie claims an unseen vent. What about the vacuum? Oh, that was just a little mistake by a few of the witnesses. Historians, archaeologists et al. claim that the graves were dug with the M&H draglines from T-I. Nessie declares that some kind of a "special machine" was used to dig the graves and everyone else is wrong. The kind of machine and how it functioned is unknown. How it was shipped into and out of Treblinka is unknown and apparently secret since its existence was unknown to everyone in the camp.
Nessie pontificates that the Germans could dig pits, transport the ex, and cremate cadavers all on the premise that such activities commonly take place. They do but not within the scope of the events described for Treblinka. Nessie tries to gloss over that fact with generalizations and declares that the impossibilities described by himself and by others were the true events of Treblinka. What bullshit.
|
|
Nessie
âď¸
đđđ§đđŤđđđ˘đĽđ˘đŹ đŽđąđˇđđąđśđ°đŽđđźđż
Posts: 5,210
|
Post by Nessie on Jan 25, 2022 10:10:18 GMT
Here we see the illogical arguments being repeated; Nessie wrote: A hole/pit can be scratched out of sandy soil with bare hands and at least with a pick and shovel. Nessie says a pit is a pit so the Germans could dig pits. The Germans could build gas chambers but couldn't build one of brick that would withstand multiple atm of pressure. There are in fact numerous gas chambers in the US for the purpose of ripening fruit with ethylene and for fumigants. Nessie says a gas chamber is a gas chamber and makes no distinctions between any of them. Same with pyres. Pyres are pyres whether they contain sufficient fuel to completely cremate a body or not. You are yet again making the illogical argument that how a witness describes something, is how to determine it is physically possible. You know that German engineering and construction capabilities were at a point that they could dig huge pits and deal with the ex, they could build functioning gas chambers using engine exhaust fumes and they could burn corpse on pyres set like massive BBQs. It is what the Germans were capable of doing that determines if they could dig big pits, gas people and set pyres, not how witnesses describe what they saw. Multiple witnesses speak to seeing excavators working at TII, from prisoners, to local Polish rail workers. None give a make or model, so we know excavators were used, but not what type. You know that, but you pretend to forget as you pretend to yourself that digging a big pit is a physical impossibility for the Germans!!! You are yet again falsely presuming that witnesses will give detailed and accurate descriptions, covering every single aspect of the gas chambers. You have zero experience of witness evidence, but you arrogantly think you can assess it, even when you have not read it!!! Your methodology for assessing witnesses is not used by any historian or in any court, because it is based on the logical fallacies of argument from incredulity and ignorance. Just because you do not believe it and cannot work out how it happened, does not therefore mean it did not happen.
|
|
Turnagain
âď¸
đđźđťđźđżđŽđđđ
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on Jan 25, 2022 11:21:57 GMT
I had just about finished an answer to Nessie when my junk HP computer performed some kind of an un-commanded exercise that erased it, apparently permanently. I shall summarize. Nessie claims that anything that he can fantasize happened because it happened. Anything else he fantasizes is substantiated by, "The eeevul Narzis knew how to get 'er done". So it goes in holyhoax la-la land.
|
|
Nessie
âď¸
đđđ§đđŤđđđ˘đĽđ˘đŹ đŽđąđˇđđąđśđ°đŽđđźđż
Posts: 5,210
|
Post by Nessie on Jan 25, 2022 11:47:09 GMT
I had just about finished an answer to Nessie when my junk HP computer performed some kind of an un-commanded exercise that erased it, apparently permanently. I shall summarize. Nessie claims that anything that he can fantasize happened because it happened. Anything else he fantasizes is substantiated by, "The eeevul Narzis knew how to get 'er done". So it goes in holyhoax la-la land. Wrong again. I claim what happened, based on the standard of evidence. For example;
I do not accept claims about vacuum chambers because they are not credible, are not corroborated by any eyewitness and can be explained by the claims of pumping air out so people suffocate. Therefore, I dismiss the vacuum claim as wrong and unproven, because the standard of evidence is poor.
I accept the use of engine exhaust, because it is credible and corroborated by multiple eyewitnesses who saw gassings and knew about how the gas chambers worked, so the standard of evidence is far higher than the vacuum claims.
I accept claims about large pits being dug by excavators because of eyewitnesses to the use of excavators, because TII was next to a quarry, so easy access to excavators and because of the geophysical evidence. The standard of evidence is high.
I do not accept denier claims about a lack of pits at the camps for mass graves, because they present no evidence at all, from any witness, geophysical or other evidential source to back their claim up. The standard of evidence is not just low, it is non-existent.
That we do not know the precise details about how the gas chambers worked or how the pits were dug, does not therefore mean they did not happen. Your claim is illogical.
|
|
Turnagain
âď¸
đđźđťđźđżđŽđđđ
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on Jan 25, 2022 11:54:37 GMT
Nessie wrote:
IOW you agree with the witnesses when they support the holyhoax but not when they drop a clanger. We don't know how the eeevul Narzis did it but they "knew how to get 'er done" and it happened because it happened. Life in holyhoax la-la land.
|
|
Nessie
âď¸
đđđ§đđŤđđđ˘đĽđ˘đŹ đŽđąđˇđđąđśđ°đŽđđźđż
Posts: 5,210
|
Post by Nessie on Jan 25, 2022 17:01:29 GMT
Nessie wrote: IOW you agree with the witnesses when they support the holyhoax but not when they drop a clanger. We don't know how the eeevul Narzis did it but they "knew how to get 'er done" and it happened because it happened. Life in holyhoax la-la land. No, that is yet another misrepresentation.
I agree with witnesses who give evidence about what they saw with their own eyes, that is ALSO corroborated by other evidence.
I do not accept uncorroborated hearsay evidence.
You have dodged my point about your illogical claim. That is because you know it is not logical and cannot accept your error.
|
|
Turnagain
âď¸
đđźđťđźđżđŽđđđ
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on Jan 25, 2022 18:53:24 GMT
Let's take up your belief that engine exhaust was the lethal agent in the alleged gas chambers. Remember that almost all witnesses to the gas chamber agreed that the gas chamber was hermetically sealed. You said:
Does a gasoline engine produce enough CO to be lethal to humans? Indeed it does. You claim that the witnesses are credible since they are corroborated by other eyewitnesses. You support witnesses when you agree with them and then immediately claim that they were "mistaken" about their hermetically sealed testimony. That's a blatant hypocrisy that utterly wrecks your claim that the witnesses are credible.
Be that as it may, let's continue. The official narrative is that the engine was taken from a captured Soviet tank. We know that the Soviet tank engine was most likely the 27 liter M-5; the knockoff of the American aircraft engine. Removing an engine even from even a car and remounting it as a stationary power plant presents it's own problems. First there is an electrical system with all of its fiddly bits and no source for spare parts such as spark plugs, points, a condenser, a coil, etc. plus all of the rerouting of the wiring and fuel supply. In short, it's a giant effing hassle. Why would the Germans take on such a chore if it wasn't necessary?
The Germans had hundreds of thousands of producer gas generators in Germany. They also had huge stocks of bottled CO that was used for making steel. Would the Germans who were known for practicality and efficiency take on the unnecessary chore of removing and modifying an engine from the Soviet tank along with the attendant lack of replacement parts when they had two different and more practical and efficient sources of CO? Yes, there's a possibility but a very slim one.
Then we have your vents for the gas chambers that were "mistakenly" claimed to have been hermetically sealed. You say that they would be small, unobtrusive and easily missed by the witnesses. That's utter bullshit. At even 1,800 rpm that Soviet tank engine would be producing over 24 cubic meters of exhaust per minute. Vents would have to be substantial and not at all unobtrusive. The air in the gas chamber would be totally exchanged for engine exhaust in 5.7 minutes.
You even go so far as to claim that the signature color of lethal CO poisoning isn't pink or red in a vain attempt to protect the "credibility" of the witnesses after you have blown any such credibility out of the water by claiming that the witnesses were "mistaken" about the hermetically sealed gas chambers.
There is absolutely nothing that is credible about the Soviet tank being the source of lethal CO at Treblinka. Is it POSSIBLE that a Soviet tank engine was used to provide lethal quantities of CO at Treblinka? Yes, there was a minuscule possibility that actually happened. That possibility for damned sure wasn't anything to write home about.
|
|
Nessie
âď¸
đđđ§đđŤđđđ˘đĽđ˘đŹ đŽđąđˇđđąđśđ°đŽđđźđż
Posts: 5,210
|
Post by Nessie on Jan 25, 2022 19:28:02 GMT
Let's take up your belief that engine exhaust was the lethal agent in the alleged gas chambers. Remember that almost all witnesses to the gas chamber agreed that the gas chamber was hermetically sealed. You said: Does a gasoline engine produce enough CO to be lethal to humans? Indeed it does. You claim that the witnesses are credible since they are corroborated by other eyewitnesses. You support witnesses when you agree with them and then immediately claim that they were "mistaken" about their hermetically sealed testimony. That's a blatant hypocrisy that utterly wrecks your claim that the witnesses are credible. You are mistaken due to your very literal interpretation of their words. I have argued that their claims of hermetic sealing made sense, because they were referring to hermetic seals around doors and vents, which would stop leaks, make it safe for those outside and mean less gas was needed inside. Your arguments from incredulity are logical fallacies. It does not matter that you think another engine would be better or that any vents would be obvious. Fact is, any sizeable petrol engine would do, and a hinged vent is a simple way to deal with pressure. Your suggestion German engineering was not up to the task is drivel. I have not claimed the signature colour of CO lividity is not pink or red. I have shown medical evidence that it only starts to appear at least 15 minutes after death, if a body is not moved, as the blood pools and lividity forms in the skin. When the gas chamber doors were opened and the bodies removed, lividity had not had time to form and then could not because the body was being moved.
|
|
Turnagain
âď¸
đđźđťđźđżđŽđđđ
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on Jan 25, 2022 20:02:53 GMT
Nessie wrote:
What vents? The vents you invented? What good would a vent do if it was hermetically sealed?
No, my statements are realistic. It is difficult to first remove and then repurpose any engine. A producer gas generator was more readily available, simple, cheap to operate and reliable. Bottled CO speaks for itself. IOW, you're full of more shit than a Christmas goose, Nessie.
No, you have never shown the red/pink discoloration to come from livor mortis in cases of lethal CO poisoning with carboxyhemoglobin over 60%. You're just cherry picking your quotes.
|
|
Nessie
âď¸
đđđ§đđŤđđđ˘đĽđ˘đŹ đŽđąđˇđđąđśđ°đŽđđźđż
Posts: 5,210
|
Post by Nessie on Jan 25, 2022 20:11:02 GMT
You are trying to deflect from your claims that it was physically impossible for the Germans to have
1 - built a gas chamber using a petrol engine, pipes, valves, concrete, brick, tiles and wood, with hermetic seals around the doors and vents. 2 - dig big pits and store the ex somewhere, in a camp next to a quarry 3 - set pyres that are scaled up BBQs.
Considering what else they constructed during WII, those tasks were simple to engineer.
|
|
Turnagain
âď¸
đđźđťđźđżđŽđđđ
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on Jan 25, 2022 20:39:17 GMT
Nessie wrote:
Nope, the Germans didn't build any hermetically sealed gas chambers that used a 27 liter gas engine as a source of CO. Neither did they build any steam or vacuum chambers. It didn't happen.
Nope, the Germans didn't dig any 25-30 meter wide and 10-12 meter deep pits with the M&H draglines from T-I. Neither did they move 190,000 to 200,000 cubic meters of soil using nothing but their bare hands and coat pockets to move the ex to some unknown location and then back to the camp. It didn't happen.
Nope, the Germans didn't pile 2,000 to 3,000 bodies on a grate that was about 1.5 meters wide and 30 meters long and totally cremate them with nothing for fuel except kindling, camp detritus or just the bodies themselves. It didn't happen.
|
|
Nessie
âď¸
đđđ§đđŤđđđ˘đĽđ˘đŹ đŽđąđˇđđąđśđ°đŽđđźđż
Posts: 5,210
|
Post by Nessie on Jan 26, 2022 8:01:02 GMT
Nessie wrote: Nope, the Germans didn't build any hermetically sealed gas chambers that used a 27 liter gas engine as a source of CO. Neither did they build any steam or vacuum chambers. It didn't happen. It was physically possible to build a gas chamber using an engine, we just do not have the details as to exactly how it worked, such as exactly what engine was used. It was physically possible for large pits to be dug and the ex moved. We just do not know the details of exactly how it was done. It was physically possible to do, we just do not know exactly how. The gas chambers, graves and pyres are all evidenced to have happened. That you do not believe it was possible is the logical fallacy of argument from incredulity. fallacyinlogic.com/argument-from-incredulity-definition-and-examples/"Argument from incredulity, also known as personal incredulity fallacy, is a logical fallacy in which someone concludes that something must not be true (or false) since they cannot believe or imagine it being true (or false). This type of fallacious move is frequently used in debates over science and religion when certain theories and claims differ from our own deeply held beliefs."
|
|