Nessie
🦕
𝐕𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐬 𝗮𝗱𝗷𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿 (Nessies forum)
Posts: 3,630
|
Post by Nessie on May 8, 2022 17:21:17 GMT
there are no credible accounts by ANY eye-witnesses of mass-gassing. Firstly, there is the issue of accurately assessing credibility. Secondly, there is the issue of credibility and truthfulness are different. Thirdly, there is the issue that truthfulness is more important than credibility. The point being, even if every Jewish witness to mass gassings is not credible, there are other witnesses who say the same, for whom there is not such a credibility issue and in any case, there is other evidence, which is how truthfulness is assessed. |
|
Nessie
🦕
𝐕𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐬 𝗮𝗱𝗷𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿 (Nessies forum)
Posts: 3,630
|
Post by Nessie on May 8, 2022 18:21:15 GMT
So, the newest member of the forum "Caius Papirius Natalis", who is yet another moderator (how many is that now?) has decided discussing witness credibility and truthfulness, is not relevant to a threat about witness credibility and truthfulness.
Been-there is wrong. There are credible eyewitnesses to gassings, he just has an opinionated methodology for assessing credibility, based on the logical fallacy of argument from incredulity.
Even if no witness was credible, that does not mean they all lied and there were no gassings.
Some of the best liars are the most credible of witnesses. That is how they fool people with their lies.
|
|
|
|
Post by Turnagain on May 8, 2022 20:38:28 GMT
Nessie wrote:
When a witness gives testimony that is accurate in most particulars but is mistaken, exaggerates or even lies about one detail of the narrative then he can be said to not be completely credible but is generally telling the truth. When a witness recounts a whole series of obvious lies then he's neither credible nor truthful.
When witnesses tell of hermetically sealed gas chambers, impossibly large excavations, impossible means of exhuming and disposing of the cadavers then they're neither credible nor telling the truth. One or two mistakes/exaggerations about some detail of the claim of genocide doesn't preclude the possibility that the genocide actually occurred. When the entire accusation is nothing but a fabricated series of fantasies then it's safe to say that the alleged eyewitnesses are liars and the genocide didn't happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by been_there on May 9, 2022 7:45:02 GMT
|
|
Nessie
🦕
𝐕𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐬 𝗮𝗱𝗷𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿 (Nessies forum)
Posts: 3,630
|
Post by Nessie on May 9, 2022 7:53:46 GMT
Nessie wrote: When a witness gives testimony that is accurate in most particulars but is mistaken, exaggerates or even lies about one detail of the narrative then he can be said to not be completely credible but is generally telling the truth. When a witness recounts a whole series of obvious lies then he's neither credible nor truthful. When witnesses tell of hermetically sealed gas chambers, impossibly large excavations, impossible means of exhuming and disposing of the cadavers then they're neither credible nor telling the truth. One or two mistakes/exaggerations about some detail of the claim of genocide doesn't preclude the possibility that the genocide actually occurred. When the entire accusation is nothing but a fabricated series of fantasies then it's safe to say that the alleged eyewitnesses are liars and the genocide didn't happen.
Your arguments from incredulity are not a reasonable method to assess truthfulness. That you think using hermetic seals on a gas chambers is stupid, and you think claims about digging big pits are ridiculous and you cannot see how a pyre using a metal grate would work, does not make them impossible.
The witness claims are corroborated by physical evidence and physical evidence is the best form of evidence. So remains of a building, cremated remains and large pits corroborate the witnesses are being truthful.
Even if you do not accept that, you cannot evidence what did happen instead, so logically, the evidence of gassings etc stands as the only evidenced event inside the AR camps.
|
|
Nessie
🦕
𝐕𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐬 𝗮𝗱𝗷𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿 (Nessies forum)
Posts: 3,630
|
Post by Nessie on May 9, 2022 8:01:31 GMT
That applies to all the witnesses who were inside the AR camps and A-B Kremas. Those who worked in the AR camps sorting centres and not at the gas chambers will give less credible evidence about gassings, since they did not actually see gassings. Conversely, they give credible evidence about the sorting process, since that was where they worked. The Topf & Sons engineers did not see gassings, but their knowledge of the Krema construction makes their evidence very credible.
Something that all deniers weasel dodge, is that every single witness who worked at an AR camp or Krema stated that there were mass gassings. No one said something else, such as mass showering took place.
The 1-4 above do not guarantee truthfulness. Someone who was present at an occurrence and paid attention, can still have a desire to deceive. That is why corroborative evidence is so important. If evidence that a witness has no influence over, either confirms or contradicts them, then we have an accurate method for assessing truthfulness.
|
|
|
|
Post by been_there on May 9, 2022 8:03:04 GMT
|
|
Nessie
🦕
𝐕𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐬 𝗮𝗱𝗷𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿 (Nessies forum)
Posts: 3,630
|
Post by Nessie on May 9, 2022 13:12:07 GMT
Using the list above
1 - the witnesses who worked inside the Kremas are all consistent with the process, from undressing, gassings to cremations. The witnesses who worked at the AR camps vary more, because not all saw the entire process. But otherwise, they are consistent that people were undressed, killed inside chamber and buried in mass graves, which switched to cremations.
2 - reputation for untruthfulness plays to the anti-Semitic trope of Jewish dishonesty and deviousness. That the Nazis say the same as the Jewish witnesses, should dispel any suggestion of untruthfulness.
3 - many supposed inconsistencies are down to defects in perception, especially since people were recalling events from years, if not decades, earlier. Estimates of time, sizes, distances will all be affected and ho one would be expected to be accurate.
4 - as 2 above
5 - of course the Jewish witnesses will be biased, all victims are to one extent or another. So, again, that the Nazis say the same, adds weight to Jewish credibility and truthfulness. The few instances of Nazi confessions that were accompanied by torture, are outweighed by the Nazis who were not tortured saying the same. Any suggestion of bias is also outweighed by the fact that the Jews and Nazis and Poles would not normally cooperate and yet their evidence agrees on all the major parts.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrolonzo on May 10, 2022 19:49:49 GMT
Using the list above
1 - the witnesses who worked inside the Kremas are all consistent with the process, from undressing, gassings to cremations. The witnesses who worked at the AR camps vary more, because not all saw the entire process. But otherwise, they are consistent that people were undressed, killed inside chamber and buried in mass graves, which switched to cremations.
2 - reputation for untruthfulness plays to the anti-Semitic trope of Jewish dishonesty and deviousness. That the Nazis say the same as the Jewish witnesses, should dispel any suggestion of untruthfulness.
3 - many supposed inconsistencies are down to defects in perception, especially since people were recalling events from years, if not decades, earlier. Estimates of time, sizes, distances will all be affected and ho one would be expected to be accurate.
4 - as 2 above
5 - of course the Jewish witnesses will be biased, all victims are to one extent or another. So, again, that the Nazis say the same, adds weight to Jewish credibility and truthfulness. The few instances of Nazi confessions that were accompanied by torture, are outweighed by the Nazis who were not tortured saying the same. Any suggestion of bias is also outweighed by the fact that the Jews and Nazis and Poles would not normally cooperate and yet their evidence agrees on all the major parts.
1 - Filip Mueller? 2 - Nope. Jews had an interest, nazis were under pressure. 3 - or down to imperfect knowledge due to little actual experience. 4 - as above 5 - Nazis were never without pressure in various ways, only a few were brave. Which is logical, most people lie either to save their skin or to advance their ethic , or their 'side's' interest and only a few are shooting straight. Nessie. Do you feel that I have answered these points straightforwardly and in good faith with your wishes and the aims of this board? If not, I will gladly change my answers to help fit with the discussion you wish to have. |
|
|
|
Post by Turnagain on May 11, 2022 0:35:42 GMT
Nessie wrote:
Nessie calls trigonometric proofs and the laws of physics "arguments from incredulity". For Nessie, trigonometry is just a bunch of meaningless squiggles and the laws of physics are irrelevant to holyhoax claims. Such objections are just "arguments from incredulity".
Here is a definition of an argument from incredulity.
I DO understand the trigonometric functions for why the M&H draglines couldn't dig the mass graves as described by the lie-witnesses. I DO understand Boyle's law and why the hermetically sealed gas/vacuum chambers couldn't function. I DO understand the laws of thermodynamics in regard to an endothermic reaction. Argument from incredulity my shiny hiney.
|
|
