Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,206
|
Post by Nessie on Feb 24, 2022 10:43:01 GMT
That someone has lied can only be proved with evidence, not argument from incredulity.
A claim that a boy has cycled to the moon is not proved a lie because the claim is too incredible to believe, it is proved a lie because of the evidence that it is physically impossible to cycle to the moon.
A claim that the British used gas chambers to murder German internees on the Isle of Man can be proved to be a lie by interviewing witnesses and searching for evidence and evidencing what did happen and that all internees can be accounted for. In claims such as that, the absence of evidence of gassings, is evidence that there were no gassings. That the claim of the British using gas chambers would be too incredible for some to accept, is not prof of lying. The proof comes from the evidence.
Then there is the issue of how witnesses behave. Just because a witness tells a lie about one thing, does not mean he lies about everything. Furthermore, witnesses can and do make mistakes, exaggerate, use emotive descriptions, mix hearsay and eyewitness evidence, forget and give the impression they are lying, when they are not. They may appear to be too incredible to believe, even when they are telling the truth as they remember it.
That is why evidence is needed to prove a lie, not argument from incredulity. Only evidence from other witnesses, documents, physical items, photos, forensics, archaeology and circumstances is acceptable.
|
|
|
Post by been_there on Feb 24, 2022 12:19:03 GMT
|
|
|
Post by been_there on Feb 24, 2022 13:09:53 GMT
. . . CREATING FALSE MEMORIES As any genuine investigator, policeman, detective, lawyer or judge KNOWS, witness statements are the LEAST reliable form of โevidenceโ. That is why all witness statements need to be corroborated by other less unreliable proof such as forensic and/or documentary evidence. That is why even โconfessionsโ need to be corroborated. The problem with the credibility of the holocaust mass-gassing narrative is that it is based almost completely on highly questionable (and often preposterous) โ witnessโ testimony. The reality is that the witness testimony regarding mass-gassings โ at the sites claimed, by the methods claimed, on the scale claimed โ in ALL cases is NOT CORROBORATED by the empirical evidence! NONE of the witness statements are corroborated, on those particular points. None! Not one. We have been over this many times here at RODOH.
So any honest investigator instead of asking โ where did they gooooooo, then?โ should be asking โhow can so many people be repeating the same empirically refuted falsehoods?โ.And any genuine, intelligent investigator would not be suggesting โhow can so many people all be lying?โ. That would be an extremely stupid response. The fact of many people repeating the same empirically refuted falsehoods is partly explained by the mass-gassing mythology being started as a deliberate, black-arts, psy-op, atrocity propaganda. In other words it was an expertly planned and executed mass-deception. So to ask โhow could so many people be deceivedโ is an extremely stupid and naive response. The British head of this Allied psy-op was a โJewโ of half-German ethnicity. His mother-tongue was German. His education was in Germany. And as a self-identifying โJewโ he had a pathological hatred of โGermansโ and Germany. He was not alone in this. Maybe I should create a list of all the Jews at the time who from their statements, letters and actions showed that they fit in a similar category of Jews with German connections who were filled and motivated by if not hatred, then considerable antipathy. Off the top of my head, such a list would include Albert Einstein, Lord Lindemann, Samuel Untermyer, Sefton Delmer, Theodore N. Kaufman, etc., etc. . . . So many people repeating the same empirically refuted falsehoods is explained in numerous ways. Even if we leave out the obvious one that lies were made out of a spirit of vengeance, there are other explanations. The Solomon Asch experiments in group conformity partly explain it (see above video on that).Another explanation is the phenomena of creating false memories by suggestion. Here is an extract from an article on this phenomena and how EASY it is to affect some people with it. And here from the same article is an explanation of why people will initially correctly and truthfully deny but later FALSELY confess to wrongdoing.
|
|
|
Post by Ulios on Feb 24, 2022 18:33:43 GMT
A claim that a boy has cycled to the moon is not proved a lie because the claim is too incredible to believe, it is proved a lie because of the evidence that it is physically impossible to cycle to the moon. This is the exact point others have been trying to drill into that pointed skull; many of the claims made of this holocaust are of equal calibre to the little boy and his bike.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,206
|
Post by Nessie on Feb 24, 2022 19:53:04 GMT
A claim that a boy has cycled to the moon is not proved a lie because the claim is too incredible to believe, it is proved a lie because of the evidence that it is physically impossible to cycle to the moon. This is the exact point others have been trying to drill into that pointed skull; many of the claims made of this holocaust are of equal calibre to the little boy and his bike.
That the descriptions make things appear to be physically impossible, does not mean they are physically impossible. I think claims about a hoax and millions were kept alive in secret, to fool the world, is too incredible to believe, but my belief is not evidence.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,206
|
Post by Nessie on Feb 24, 2022 20:17:16 GMT
... The reality is that the witness testimony regarding mass-gassings โ at the sites claimed, by the methods claimed, on the scale claimed โ in ALL cases is NOT CORROBORATED by the empirical evidence! NONE of the witness statements are corroborated, on those particular points. None! Not one. We have been over this many times here at RODOH.
...Outwith the witness evidence to mass gassings, there is evidence from; 1 - documents, which prove mass transports to the death camps, with many trains leaving empty to return to the towns and cities they left. 2 - documents at A-B, which record the building of gas chambers 3 - the physical remains of buildings that had been buried, at the locations given for the gas chambers, or in the case of A-B blown up Kremas as well as demolished remains. 4 - archaeological and forensic evidence of large areas of excavated ground and buried cremated and larger human remains 5 - the circumstantial evidence of AR and the mass theft of property. That evidence is consistent with, as in it backs up, witness claims of mass arrivals, people being stripped of everything they owned, gassed and then buried or cremated. The evidence from documents, physical remains etc logically converges with gassings, which in turn is consistent and converges with Nazi planning to rid the occupied territories of Jews, by various means. That there is evidence missing, such as all the documents from the AR camps themselves and places the Nazis knew they were being accused of using for gassings were damaged or destroyed, are actions by the Nazis that infers criminal conduct on their part.
|
|
|
Post by Ulios on Feb 24, 2022 20:21:59 GMT
That the descriptions make things appear to be physically impossible, does not mean they are physically impossible. You said above that the little boy riding to the Moon is physically impossible now you are changing your stance; pehaps the little boys just rose above the clouds and people thought he rode to the Moon. The shoah morphing would have the little boy after a few changes commading a powerful rocket to the Moon, the witnesses were mistaken about the bike, how stupid of them; it was always a rocket. This is off topic to this discussion as there is an existing thread on an alleged hoax.
|
|
|
Post by Ulios on Feb 24, 2022 20:22:57 GMT
... The reality is that the witness testimony regarding mass-gassings โ at the sites claimed, by the methods claimed, on the scale claimed โ in ALL cases is NOT CORROBORATED by the empirical evidence! NONE of the witness statements are corroborated, on those particular points. None! Not one. We have been over this many times here at RODOH.
...Outwith the witness evidence to mass gassings, there is evidence from; 1 - documents, which prove mass transports to the death camps, with many trains leaving empty to return to the towns and cities they left. 2 - documents at A-B, which record the building of gas chambers 3 - the physical remains of buildings that had been buried, at the locations given for the gas chambers, or in the case of A-B blown up Kremas as well as demolished remains. 4 - archaeological and forensic evidence of large areas of excavated ground and buried cremated and larger human remains 5 - the circumstantial evidence of AR and the mass theft of property. That evidence is consistent with, as in it backs up, witness claims of mass arrivals, people being stripped of everything they owned, gassed and then buried or cremated. The evidence from documents, physical remains etc logically converges with gassings, which in turn is consistent and converges with Nazi planning to rid the occupied territories of Jews, by various means. That there is evidence missing, such as all the documents from the AR camps themselves and places the Nazis knew they were being accused of using for gassings were damaged or destroyed, are actions by the Nazis that infers criminal conduct on their part. This is totally off topic.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,206
|
Post by Nessie on Feb 24, 2022 20:27:26 GMT
That the descriptions make things appear to be physically impossible, does not mean they are physically impossible. You said above that the little boy riding to the Moon is physically impossible now you are changing your stance; pehaps the little boys just rose above the clouds and people thought he rode to the Moon. The shoah morphing would have the little boy after a few changes commading a powerful rocket to the Moon, the witnesses were mistaken about the bike, how stupid of them; it was always a rocket. This is off topic to this discussion as there is an existing thread on an alleged hoax. If someone claims a boy cycled his bike to the moon, we know that witness is lying, because it is physically impossible to cycle to the moon. Claims Germans built gas chambers, dug large pits and cremated on pyres are not claims about the physically impossible.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,206
|
Post by Nessie on Feb 24, 2022 20:33:17 GMT
Outwith the witness evidence to mass gassings, there is evidence from; 1 - documents, which prove mass transports to the death camps, with many trains leaving empty to return to the towns and cities they left. 2 - documents at A-B, which record the building of gas chambers 3 - the physical remains of buildings that had been buried, at the locations given for the gas chambers, or in the case of A-B blown up Kremas as well as demolished remains. 4 - archaeological and forensic evidence of large areas of excavated ground and buried cremated and larger human remains 5 - the circumstantial evidence of AR and the mass theft of property. That evidence is consistent with, as in it backs up, witness claims of mass arrivals, people being stripped of everything they owned, gassed and then buried or cremated. The evidence from documents, physical remains etc logically converges with gassings, which in turn is consistent and converges with Nazi planning to rid the occupied territories of Jews, by various means. That there is evidence missing, such as all the documents from the AR camps themselves and places the Nazis knew they were being accused of using for gassings were damaged or destroyed, are actions by the Nazis that infers criminal conduct on their part. This is totally off topic. Wrong, it is bang on topic. Been-there understands that evidence is required to determine if a witness is telling the truth or not. He correctly points out that if there is no evidence to corroborate a witnesses claims, and that witness has fallen for group conformity and false memories, then they can lie, without realising they are lying. The witness thinks he is telling the truth, when he is not. That is why other evidence is needed.
Been-there's mistake is to claim that there is no empirical evidence to corroborate the witness claims about gassings. Fact is that we know the witnesses are not lying, because of what the other evidence shows.
|
|
|
Post by Ulios on Feb 24, 2022 20:37:45 GMT
If someone claims a boy cycled his bike to the moon, we know that witness is lying, because it is physically impossible to cycle to the moon. Claims Germans built gas chambers, dug large pits and cremated on pyres are not claims about the physically impossible. Any building can be a gas chamber, the efficacy depends on the gas; Ypres was a giant gas chamber without walls, with chlorine being the agent; the allies reported 5000 killed and 15 thousand wounded. Large pits can be dug and outdoor cremations happen. However, as unlikely as it is, it is not those claims that are of the "little boy and his trike" standard. What is equitable is the issue of flammable blood and exothermic corpses, the infinitesimal amout of fuel spoken about in comparison to reality. These blatant fabrications are fictions, which suggest everything the author has said is of similar integrity.
|
|
Turnagain
โ๏ธ
๐๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐๐
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on Feb 24, 2022 21:26:42 GMT
Following Nessie's rules of evidence we could say, is it possible to build tricycles? Of course it is. Do little boys ride tricycles? Of course they do. Therefore it's possible for a little boy to ride his tricycle to the moon. No different from saying, could the Germans build gas chambers? Of course they could. Could the Germans did large pits? Of course they could. Therefore it's possible that the Germans gassed and buried 700,000 plus Jews at Treblinka.
Nessie just leaves out all of the qualifiers. Could the Germans build a hermetically sealed gas/vacuum chamber from bricks and pump the exhaust from a 27 liter engine into it for 10-20 minutes? No they couldn't. Could they evacuate the air from the chamber before pumping in the exhaust? No they couldn't. It would go similarly with the mass graves, the exhumations and the cremations. Nessie just makes the leap from what could be possible under ideal conditions with all of the necessary equipment and supplies to what is claimed for Treblinka. No different from the little boy and his tricycle scenario.
|
|
|
Post by been_there on Feb 24, 2022 23:17:17 GMT
Outwith the witness evidence to mass gassings, there is evidence from; 1 - documents, which prove mass transports to the death camps, with many trains leaving empty to return to the towns and cities they left. 2 - documents at A-B, which record the building of gas chambers 3 - the physical remains of buildings that had been buried, at the locations given for the gas chambers, or in the case of A-B blown up Kremas as well as demolished remains. 4 - archaeological and forensic evidence of large areas of excavated ground and buried cremated and larger human remains 5 - the circumstantial evidence of AR and the mass theft of property. That evidence is consistent with, as in it backs up, witness claims of mass arrivals, people being stripped of everything they owned, gassed and then buried or cremated. The evidence from documents, physical remains etc logically converges with gassings, which in turn is consistent and converges with Nazi planning to rid the occupied territories of Jews, by various means. That there is evidence missing, such as all the documents from the AR camps themselves and places the Nazis knew they were being accused of using for gassings were damaged or destroyed, are actions by the Nazis [someone] that infers criminal conduct on their part. This is totally off topic. Actually, no. It is on topic. ๐ It is Nessie giving a practical demonstration of how holocaust promulgators attempt to โprove a lieโ by literally stupid โ but amazingly so far succesful โ hopelessly irrational โreasoningโ. ๐ 1. Documents showing only train movements of people delusionally becomes โproofโ of mass-gassings. 2. Architectural drawings of morgues at Birkenau delusionally become records of โgas chambersโ. 3. Buildings demolished by someone (Soviets or Germans, we donโt know for sure) delusionally becomes โproofโ of hiding โgas chambersโ. 4. tiny mass-graves of a few bones and an ancient shark tooth becomes โproofโ of million murdered Jews at Treblinka, plus absence of disturbed earth at Babi Yarr or cremains in pools in Auschwitz is avoided and passed over. 5. Appropriation of wealth prior to forced exile, labour or incarceration delusionally becomes proof of โgenocideโ. It is confirmation bias taken to such an extreme that it became a mass-delusion. And this is how a lie in the minds of so many deceived believers has been and still is โprovenโ. ๐คช
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,206
|
Post by Nessie on Feb 25, 2022 8:33:33 GMT
If someone claims a boy cycled his bike to the moon, we know that witness is lying, because it is physically impossible to cycle to the moon. Claims Germans built gas chambers, dug large pits and cremated on pyres are not claims about the physically impossible. Any building can be a gas chamber, the efficacy depends on the gas; Ypres was a giant gas chamber without walls, with chlorine being the agent; the allies reported 5000 killed and 15 thousand wounded. Large pits can be dug and outdoor cremations happen. However, as unlikely as it is, it is not those claims that are of the "little boy and his trike" standard. What is equitable is the issue of flammable blood and exothermic corpses, the infinitesimal amout of fuel spoken about in comparison to reality. These blatant fabrications are fictions, which suggest everything the author has said is of similar integrity. The obviously false claims, like blood burning, should be ignored. The witness is being emotive, not literal.
Disbelief over what appears to be a surprisingly small amount of fuel to light the pyres, does not therefore mean no pyres. The physical evidence of cremated remains and the photos of similar pyres working elsewhere, are proof the pyres did work.
It does not matter what you think of the credibility of the witness, their truthfulness is established, as been-there admits, by corroborating evidence.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,206
|
Post by Nessie on Feb 25, 2022 8:46:14 GMT
Following Nessie's rules of evidence we could say, is it possible to build tricycles? Of course it is. Do little boys ride tricycles? Of course they do. Therefore it's possible for a little boy to ride his tricycle to the moon. Wrong, because your conclusion does not follow the premise. Just because boys can ride tricycles, does not therefore mean they can ride to the moon. The fallacy you have fallen for is called a non sequitur. A + B may or may not = C. In this case, it does not, because C is known to be not possible. Your analogy is false, because you are comparing something that is physically impossible to something that is not. In this case A + B = C, because C is physically impossible. You have cherry picked and made an assumption about the engine, to make it appear it was not possible. You criticise me for making assumptions about how it was possible to do, but then you make assumptions about how it was not possible. Fact is, we do not know the precise details, but we do know, and you have admitted, that a gas chambers could have been constructed. Building a brick building, with hermetic seals around the doors and pumping exhaust in from a petrol engine, with a vent to solve any pressure issues, would work. Logically, that just means the witness was wrong about that detail. Your failure in logic, is your assumption that only a truthful witness would give precise, accurate and believable descriptions of how something works, and whether something happened, is determined by how witnesses describe the workings of something. If a witness saw a shooting, but could not give precise details of the gun, your logic is to claim the witness is a liar and there was no shooting. Clearly, that argument is wrong.
|
|