Turnagain
โ๏ธ
๐๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐๐
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on Apr 5, 2022 12:24:39 GMT
Nessie wrote:
Gawkowski is the drunk that I mentioned. Zabecki's sidekick. Are you claiming that every single one of the witnesses in the first link claimed that only a few trains left Treblinka with passengers? I asked you to name the witness and quote/link to his testimony and you, of course, weasel dodge. As with my request that you name and quote/link to a credible individual witness to the alleged homicidal events at Treblinka, you post a laundry list. That weasel dodge doesn't get any sleazier.
|
|
Turnagain
โ๏ธ
๐๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐๐
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on Apr 5, 2022 12:33:18 GMT
Nessie wrote:
So, Nessie apparently doesn't have any testimony from the Polish villagers about trains entering or leaving Treblinka. Testimony from Zabecki and Gawkowski the drunk and nobody else. Now he's frantically weasel dodging about no villagers speaking of trains leaving Treblinka.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,749
|
Post by Nessie on Apr 5, 2022 12:41:15 GMT
I have just told you that the main source of statements has been locked to online use. Here is another, Stefan Kucharek; collections.ushmm.org/oh_findingaids/RG-50.488.0006_tcn_en.pdf"when asked about delivering the Jews to camp he answers that the transport was were first divided by the Germans in Maลkinia and then he would take half of the cars from Maลkinia to Treblinka, he would leave them behind the gate and then the gate was closed; next he would take back empty cars from Treblinka to Maลkinia; he would repeat the same steps with the second half of the transport." You have switched from rail workers to locval villagers, but weasel dodge you have neither rail workers or local villagers who speak to full trains leaving TII packed full of people.
|
|
mrolonzo
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ญ๐ซ๐ข๐๐ข๐๐ง
Posts: 1,122
|
Post by mrolonzo on Apr 5, 2022 12:41:30 GMT
This topic is about where did all the Jews supposedly not gassed go. Since no denier can evidence where they went, the topic ends up discussing the evidence of what did happen, with Polish railworkers, under pain of death, being forced to take Jews to their deaths, something they clearly feel very guilty about when interviewed after the war. What the deniers then gloss over is that no Pole makes any claim to the contrary and speaks about mass transports of people back out of the camps. This is about ascertaining whether they went in the ground or elsewhere. As for pain of death, there was no pain of death. Its not supported by any documentation, so its just more horror tales made up by people who like attention.
|
|
Turnagain
โ๏ธ
๐๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐๐
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on Apr 5, 2022 19:41:47 GMT
Nessie wrote:
Kucharek was born in 1922 and went to work in a sawmill. After war broke out he became a steam locomotive engineer at the age of 17 or 18. Suuuuure he did. Sell such mindless drivel down the street.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,749
|
Post by Nessie on Apr 6, 2022 9:29:32 GMT
Nessie wrote: Kucharek was born in 1922 and went to work in a sawmill. After war broke out he became a steam locomotive engineer at the age of 17 or 18. Suuuuure he did. Sell such mindless drivel down the street. Its not like steam locos are driven by one person, there are two or three and one shovels the coal.
|
|
|
Post by ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐ด๐ป๐ธ on Apr 6, 2022 9:46:41 GMT
Its not like steam locos are driven by one person, there are two or three and one shovels the coal. Nonsense, there is the driver and the fireman, the guy who shoves the coal.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,749
|
Post by Nessie on Apr 6, 2022 11:47:23 GMT
Whatever, Kucharek is yet another witness to full trains arriving and empty trains leaving.
|
|
Turnagain
โ๏ธ
๐๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐๐
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on Apr 6, 2022 14:26:22 GMT
Nessie wrote: Right, at the tender age of 17-18 Kucharek went from working in a sawmill to steam engineer, driving trains all over Europe from France to Poland. Here's some of the requirements for learning how to operate a steam locomotive. www.quora.com/What-training-and-or-experience-is-required-to-be-a-steam-locomotive-engineerLink to the video: There are age and physical requirements along with formal classroom training and OJT to become an engineer. Let's see some proof of Kucharek's claim of working as an engineer for a railroad.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,749
|
Post by Nessie on Apr 6, 2022 14:33:52 GMT
Nessie wrote: Right, at the tender age of 17-18 Kucharek went from working in a sawmill to steam engineer, driving trains all over Europe from France to Poland. Here's some of the requirements for learning how to operate a steam locomotive. www.quora.com/What-training-and-or-experience-is-required-to-be-a-steam-locomotive-engineerLink to the video: There are age and physical requirements along with formal classroom training and OJT to become an engineer. Let's see some proof of Kucharek's claim of working as an engineer for a railroad. His bio states "Stefan Kucharek, born in Maลkinia, Poland in 1922, discusses Maลkinia's prewar Jewish community; training as a train engineer in 1939 to avoid forced labor; working as an engine driver delivering French and Polish Jewish prisoners to Treblinka". He started on the railways at 17, which is not odd and then drove trains to TII by the time he was 20, so he had three years of training. Plus, he would not have been alone on the train, steam trains had two or three people working them. Considering what people that age were doing in the armed forces, your incredulity is misplaced.
Your entire argument is yet again based around your personal incredulity, rather than evidence. No matter how often I link you to sources that explain the argument from incredulity and why it is a fallacy, you keep on using it.
|
|
Turnagain
โ๏ธ
๐๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐๐
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on Apr 6, 2022 15:27:16 GMT
Uh-huh, Kucharek worked in a sawmill and began driving trains after the war started to avoid forced labor. He became an experienced engineer traveling all over Europe from France to Poland by early in 1942 when he was just 19-20 years old. What could be more believable than that?
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,749
|
Post by Nessie on Apr 6, 2022 15:36:46 GMT
Uh-huh, Kucharek worked in a sawmill and began driving trains after the war started to avoid forced labor. He became an experienced engineer traveling all over Europe from France to Poland by early in 1942 when he was just 19-20 years old. What could be more believable than that? You have made up that he was an experienced driver, he clearly was not and you ignore steam trains are normally driven by two people. You also ignore that during the war, many young people were called upon to do jobs that they would not have otherwise done. It is also unlikely he drove all the way to France and back.
Your personal incredulity is a logical fallacy.
|
|
Turnagain
โ๏ธ
๐๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐๐
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on Apr 6, 2022 15:55:11 GMT
A fallacy of incredulity is denial without reason. There are numerous logical reasons not to believe the lies of your so-called witnesses. You obviously didn't view any of what was said on the Quora forum. You claim that thousands of cadavers were totally cremated on a grate using nothing but twigs/brush/whatever for fuel. No matter how many times you're told the fuel requirements for cremating a human cadaver you simply claim objections to be a "fallacy of incredulity". No matter how many times it's explained to you how the M&H draglines couldn't both dig and stockpile the ex from the graves you just declare all such arguments to be a "fallacy of incredulity". Bottom line, you don't comprehend the definition of a fallacy of incredulity.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,749
|
Post by Nessie on Apr 6, 2022 16:09:25 GMT
A fallacy of incredulity is denial without reason. There are numerous logical reasons not to believe the lies of your so-called witnesses. You obviously didn't view any of what was said on the Quora forum. You claim that thousands of cadavers were totally cremated on a grate using nothing but twigs/brush/whatever for fuel. No matter how many times you're told the fuel requirements for cremating a human cadaver you simply claim objections to be a "fallacy of incredulity". No matter how many times it's explained to you how the M&H draglines couldn't both dig and stockpile the ex from the graves you just declare all such arguments to be a "fallacy of incredulity". Bottom line, you don't comprehend the definition of a fallacy of incredulity. Your incredulity regarding the pyres is based on cherry picking the witnesses who used phrases such as brushwood, ignoring the references to wood. You ignore small bits of wood are used to start fires, which then set larger wood on fire, which would then set the bodies on fire. Your incredulity regarding the graves is based on not knowing what happened to the stockpile and exactly how the graves were dug. You act as if the Nazis could not work out how to pile up the ex from the graves. Your incredulity regarding the gas chambers is how witnesses referenced hermetic sealing and the lack of reference to pressure vents. You ignore the Nazis built gas chambers for clothes and trains, so obviously they could work out how to build them for people. You take those witnesses very literally, which ignores that is not how most people speak. Most people, you included, do not describe what they saw in precise detail and never use turns of phrase, hyperbole etc. You have no way of assessing witnesses who merely state there were graves, cremations or gassings, without describing how they happened. Hence, your incredulity is based on a flawed methodology for assessing witness evidence. That is why personal incredulity is a fallacy. Just because you cannot work out how it was done from the way the witnesses described what they saw, does not therefore mean it did not happen.
|
|
Turnagain
โ๏ธ
๐๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐๐
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on Apr 6, 2022 17:16:27 GMT
Nessie wrote:
Whether I "cherry-picked" my reasons for doubting the claims of the witnesses or not is irrelevant. The fact is that I give reasons for disbelieving the claims of the witnesses. I DON'T just say it's unbelievable because I don't believe the statement to be credible as required by a fallacy of incredulity. What can't you understand about that?
The fact remains that I give reasons for why I don't believe the fable of the pits and the stockpiles. I can be proven wrong but I DON'T just say that I don't believe it because it doesn't seem credible to me. What can't you understand about that.
My reasons for not believing the witnesses, right or wrong, are reasonable objections to what the witnesses claim. They are NOT just a simple objection based on nothing but personal disbelief about someone's statement.
A fallacy of incredulity: "For no given reason I just don't believe it."
Statement: "I circumnavigated solo in a 40 foot long sailboat". Fallacy of incredulity reply: "I don't believe you".
Reasons for disbelief: You're only 12 years old. You live in an orphanage in Iowa so how did you finance a 40 foot blue water sailing yacht? There's no record of you even going to the beach let alone circumnavigating and so on. Just saying "I don't believe that" is a logical fallacy of incredulity. Reasonable objections to the claim aren't a fallacy of incredulity.
Nessie obviously can't understand that and simply shrieks, "Fallacy of incredulity" when given reasons for not believing the witnesses.
|
|