|
|
Post by been_there on Apr 3, 2022 15:00:04 GMT
Try and respond to what Ied the Jewish survivor had narrated in his old age after being silent for over half a century. See if you can work out what even the Jewish journalist described as being โalmost unbelievableโ. Seriously, I recommend you awaken your own inner intelligence and ability for critical thinking. I see two nonsensical claims there. Can you detect what I regard as being nonsensical? You will need to understand what the claims of the official H-narrative now are to work it out. You are dodging the point I raised. The claim that mass gassings, graves and pyes AS DESCRIBED are physically impossible, does not therefore mean every witness lied and there were no gassings, graves and pyres. What the witnesses say happened is physically possible, it is just that at times they describe it in a way that can be interpreted as physically impossible. That does not mean the interpretation is correct.
You copy and paste the things witnesses say about the Holocaust on a regular basis and then you critique what they have said, as if you are some sort of expert on witnesses. Your lack of knowledge of witness evidence, and your disinterest in learning, means you take witnesses far too literally and you do not properly recognise that they do make mistakes, get estimations wrong, use hyperbole, figures of speech etc. Yes, they even lie at times.
When a witness is interviewed about something which, for psychological reasons such as shame and trauma, the witness chose to keep quiet about for decades, then the details they relate are not to be taken literally. Memories fade and they get corrupted. That witness is not going to be a very reliable witness. That witness also does not evidence some sort of hoax is being perpetrated, because there is ample contemporaneous evidence that there was a Holocaust involving the planning and murdering of millions of Jews. I did not โdodgeโ any point of yours, as the clear reality is that YOU responded to a post of mine and tried to move the goalposts. I posted a โsurvivorโ testimony that โas explained โ I think contains nonsense and physically impossible claims. I gave you a challenge. To try and detect what I am referring to. You donโt have to agree. But if you were able to understand a rival viewpoint then I expect you to be able to understand what I an referring to. You have been contradicting and arguing against the posts of myself and other H-skeptics for so many years, now, that if your point of view was based on a well-informed, reasoned, intelligent, difference-of-opinion, then you should be able to repeat the counter argument that you claim to be refuting. That you can not, I suggest is proof that you donโt understand nor know what you are actually arguing against. Having a contrary viewpoint is perfectly fine and reasonable. But not the way you have been repeatedly engaging. It gives me no pleasure to say it, but this is again a literally insane reply from you. As I doubt this only occurs for you in this area of discussion, I again advise you to take a break, and seek professional help. |
|
Nessie
๐ฆ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ (Nessies forum)
Posts: 4,740
|
Post by Nessie on Apr 3, 2022 15:12:38 GMT
You are dodging the point I raised. The claim that mass gassings, graves and pyes AS DESCRIBED are physically impossible, does not therefore mean every witness lied and there were no gassings, graves and pyres. What the witnesses say happened is physically possible, it is just that at times they describe it in a way that can be interpreted as physically impossible. That does not mean the interpretation is correct.
You copy and paste the things witnesses say about the Holocaust on a regular basis and then you critique what they have said, as if you are some sort of expert on witnesses. Your lack of knowledge of witness evidence, and your disinterest in learning, means you take witnesses far too literally and you do not properly recognise that they do make mistakes, get estimations wrong, use hyperbole, figures of speech etc. Yes, they even lie at times.
When a witness is interviewed about something which, for psychological reasons such as shame and trauma, the witness chose to keep quiet about for decades, then the details they relate are not to be taken literally. Memories fade and they get corrupted. That witness is not going to be a very reliable witness. That witness also does not evidence some sort of hoax is being perpetrated, because there is ample contemporaneous evidence that there was a Holocaust involving the planning and murdering of millions of Jews. I did not โdodgeโ any point of yours, as the clear reality is that YOU responded to a post of mine and tried to move the goalposts. I highlighted a flawed argument that you and others heavily rely upon. Due to censorship on this forum, I am now unable to read again what she said to see what you are referring to. You are trying to defend your argument that when witness make claims that are physically impossible, therefore they lied about what they saw and what they claimed did not happen. You are unable to logically defend your claim that if a witness describes something in a way that is, or appears to be physically impossible, that proves the witness lied. So you resort to another logical fallacy of poisoning the well. |
|
Turnagain
โ๏ธ
๐๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐๐
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on Apr 3, 2022 15:45:17 GMT
LOL! Impossibilities are no barrier to Nessie's "what ifs" and "coulda woulda".
|
|
Nessie
๐ฆ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ (Nessies forum)
Posts: 4,740
|
Post by Nessie on Apr 3, 2022 15:55:32 GMT
LOL! Impossibilities are no barrier to Nessie's "what ifs" and "coulda woulda". Gas chambers, mass graves and pyres are not physical impossibilities. You just think that how someone describes something determines physical possibility. The logical flaw in that claim is obvious to most. |
|
Turnagain
โ๏ธ
๐๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐๐
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on Apr 3, 2022 16:20:56 GMT
Just because the witnesses said that the gas/vacuum chambers were hermetically sealed doesn't mean that gas chambers weren't possible. Just because mass graves as described by the witnesses couldn't have been dug with the M&H draglines doesn't mean that there weren't mass graves. Just because the pyres described by the witnesses were impossibilities doesn't mean the people can't be cremated.
What if the vacuum chambers were just a mistake? What if the gas chambers were vented but the witnesses just didn't see the vents? What if gravity didn't work properly at Treblinka? Then the mass graves coulda been dug by the M&H draglines. What if the laws of thermodynamics quit working in Treblinka? Then the cremations coulda happened.
Yep, Nessie covers all the bases.
|
|
Nessie
๐ฆ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ (Nessies forum)
Posts: 4,740
|
Post by Nessie on Apr 3, 2022 16:31:45 GMT
Just because the witnesses said that the gas/vacuum chambers were hermetically sealed doesn't mean that gas chambers weren't possible. Just because mass graves as described by the witnesses couldn't have been dug with the M&H draglines doesn't mean that there weren't mass graves. Just because the pyres described by the witnesses were impossibilities doesn't mean the people can't be cremated. What if the vacuum chambers were just a mistake? What if the gas chambers were vented but the witnesses just didn't see the vents? What if gravity didn't work properly at Treblinka? Then the mass graves coulda been dug by the M&H draglines. What if the laws of thermodynamics quit working in Treblinka? Then the cremations coulda happened. Yep, Nessie covers all the bases.
If someone describes something they saw inaccurately, does that therefore mean they lied and what they described did not happen? Yes or no.
|
|
Turnagain
โ๏ธ
๐๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐๐
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on Apr 3, 2022 16:55:13 GMT
Depends on what they're describing. If a witness says that a car involved in an accident was blue and it was actually black and he gets the rest of the story straight then he made a mistake. If he claims that an airliner fell out of the sky and hit a cruise ship and they both sunk with no survivors then he's lying.
|
|
|
|
Post by been_there on Apr 3, 2022 17:24:02 GMT
I did not โdodgeโ any point of yours, as the clear reality is that YOU responded to a post of mine and tried to move the goalposts. 1.) I highlighted a flawed argument that you and others heavily rely upon. 2.) You are trying to defend your argument that when witness make claims that are physically impossible, therefore they lied about what they saw and what they claimed did not happen. 3. You are unable to logically defend your claim that if a witness describes something in a way that is, or appears to be physically impossible, that proves the witness lied. So you resort to another logical fallacy of poisoning the well. Your points (that I have numbered 1 & 2) are dishonest strawman distortions. Point 1. you demonstrated that you didnโt understand my point, and instead argued against something else entirely. You do this regularly. Presumably that was why a moderator (not me) moved your reply, as it was off-topic. I myself donโt see that as censorship, but as protecting conversations from derailment and ignorant trolling. Point 2. You also demonstrated you didnโt understand and have again resorted to strawman misrepresentation. Point 3. is more of the same. You admit that you donโt even remember what you are arguing against. It is literally psychotic behaviour. Seek professional help. |
|
Nessie
๐ฆ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ (Nessies forum)
Posts: 4,740
|
Post by Nessie on Apr 3, 2022 18:38:51 GMT
Depends on what they're describing. If a witness says that a car involved in an accident was blue and it was actually black and he gets the rest of the story straight then he made a mistake. If he claims that an airliner fell out of the sky and hit a cruise ship and they both sunk with no survivors then he's lying. You are weasel dodging. The question was;
If someone describes something they saw inaccurately, does that therefore mean they lied and what they described did not happen? Yes or no.
The question was not;
If someone describes something that appears credible and someone else describes something that appears incredible, which one is telling the truth?
Please answer the question;
If someone describes a big pit being dug by excavators inaccurately, does that mean they lied and what they described did not happen? Yes or no.
|
|
Nessie
๐ฆ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ (Nessies forum)
Posts: 4,740
|
Post by Nessie on Apr 3, 2022 18:46:57 GMT
1.) I highlighted a flawed argument that you and others heavily rely upon. 2.) You are trying to defend your argument that when witness make claims that are physically impossible, therefore they lied about what they saw and what they claimed did not happen. 3. You are unable to logically defend your claim that if a witness describes something in a way that is, or appears to be physically impossible, that proves the witness lied. So you resort to another logical fallacy of poisoning the well. Your points (that I have numbered 1 & 2) are dishonest strawman distortions. Point 1. you demonstrated that you didnโt understand my point, and instead argued against something else entirely. You do this regularly. Presumably that was why a moderator (not me) moved your reply, as it was off-topic. I myself donโt see that as censorship, but as protecting conversations from derailment and ignorant trolling. Point 2. You also demonstrated you didnโt understand and have again resorted to strawman misrepresentation. Point 3. is more of the same. You admit that you donโt even remember what you are arguing against. It is literally psychotic behaviour. Seek professional help. No they are not strawmen distortions. Your argument is that the witness described gassings, graves and pyres are "physically impossible and refuted nonsense". Therefore, they lied about seeing such and such did not happen.
Your comment about seeking professional help is idiotic. Do you seriously think I am going to go to some professional and say, there is an anonymous bloke on the internet who doubts much of what is claimed about the Holocaust and because I disagree with him and I agree with the evidenced historical claims, I need help?! I would question your mental health for making such as suggestion.
|
|
Turnagain
โ๏ธ
๐๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐๐
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on Apr 3, 2022 19:13:53 GMT
Nessie wrote: If the witness described a M&H Mb dragline digging and building the stockpile of ex from a 12X30X50 meter pit he's lying. Nessie leaves out what type of excavator was used and the size of the "big pit". He could be talking about a big barbeque pit or a big pit for a septic tank. He very carefully doesn't define "big pit". Neither does he define the make and model of "excavators". Nessie is a sleazy little weasel for trying to craft his question so he can crow, "You just admitted that the M&H dragline dug the graves at Treblinka" with his demand for a specific yes or no answer to a very generalized question. Nessie: Can airplanes fly faster than the speed of sound? Answer yes or no. If the respondent answers yes he can then say that Piper cubs are airplanes and they can't fly faster than the speed of sound so the respondent is a liar.
Nessie: Can motorcycles travel over 200 mph? Answer yes or no. Again, if the respondent answers yes Nessie can say that a Honda trail bike can't go 200 mph so the respondent is a liar.
|
|
|
|
Post by been_there on Apr 3, 2022 19:25:45 GMT
Your points (that I have numbered 1 & 2) are dishonest strawman distortions. Point 1. you demonstrated that you didnโt understand my point, and instead argued against something else entirely. You do this regularly. Presumably that was why a moderator (not me) moved your reply, as it was off-topic. I myself donโt see that as censorship, but as protecting conversations from derailment and ignorant trolling. Point 2. You also demonstrated you didnโt understand and have again resorted to strawman misrepresentation. Point 3. is more of the same. You admit that you donโt even remember what you are arguing against. It is literally psychotic behaviour. Seek professional help. No they are not strawmen distortions. Your argument is that the witness described gassings, graves and pyres are "physically impossible and refuted nonsense". Therefore, they lied about seeing such and such did not happen.
No, that is not my argument in THAT post you replied to. There is NOTHING there referring to โpyresโ or โgravesโ. Please try to accept that again you are wrong. Again, you have made a literally stupid reply that is not comprehending what you are replying to. This is just more unthinking, automatic, knee-jerk contradiction from you. I challenged you to be specific about what in the particular testimony you think I regard as nonsensical and physically impossible. You replied that you are no longer able to see the testimony. That is a delusional, stupid and ignorant excuse. Firstly, because if you didnโt already know what I was referring to BEFORE my challenge, then you couldnโt possibly reply in any meaningful way. Secondly because anyone can log in as a guest. So you could also do that and re-read it if you are claiming you can no longer do so as โNessieโ! ๐คฆโโ๏ธ CONCLUSION: You failed an extremely simple test. This PROVES you are not here to engage in meaningful, well-informed discussion of the Jewish experience in WW2 history. You are always unintelligently asking for โevidenceโ and claim your cultish belief-system is โevidence basedโ. So please now accept this evidence from your recent replies proving that it is clearly not that. It is literally stupid denial of the actual forensic and documentary evidence. And the way you avoid dealing with that fact is literally psychotic. |
|
Turnagain
โ๏ธ
๐๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐๐
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on Apr 3, 2022 20:00:31 GMT
Buh...buh...but, been-there, are gas chambers, graves, and cremation pyres all possible? Answer yes or no.
If you answer yes then (cockadoodle doo) you just admitted that people were gassed, buried in mass graves, exhumed with a clamshell and cremated on the magic Jew barbeque at Treblinka. So there!
|
|
Nessie
๐ฆ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ (Nessies forum)
Posts: 4,740
|
Post by Nessie on Apr 5, 2022 8:44:00 GMT
You have made a false analogy, comparing what is not evidenced, to what is. Oh boy! ๐ You wrote: โQuite why it has "no value" is not clear.โI explained why, with other โeye witnessโ examples that have no value. You couldnโt understand the explanation. ๐คฆโโ๏ธWhich I regard as further proof of your inability to approach the โholocaustโ narrative intelligently and critically.I explained to you why your explanation was flawed and how it is a false analogy.
Eyewitnesses to the inside the Kremas are high value evidence of what happened, since they were there and saw with their own eyes what happened. Mattogno has dismissed Klein as "no value", merely because Klein states what he does not want to hear. Klein's claim about the Krema having a gas chamber is corroborated by other witnesses, documents, physical and circumstantial evidence.
|
|
|
|
Post by been_there on Apr 5, 2022 8:49:58 GMT
You couldnโt understand the explanation. ๐คฆโโ๏ธWhich I regard as further proof of your inability to approach the โholocaustโ narrative intelligently and critically.Mattogno has dismissed Klein as "no value", merely because [...false reason given]... Wrong yet again. He didnโt โdismiss Klein as of no valueโ. Another idiotic misrepresentation by you. ๐ He dismissed a part of Kleinโs testimony. And gave reasons why. Reasons which you didnโt include and when explained couldnโt understand. |
|
