Nessie
âď¸
đđđ§đđŤđđđ˘đĽđ˘đŹ đŽđąđˇđđąđśđ°đŽđđźđż
Posts: 5,206 
|
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
âď¸
đđđ§đđŤđđđ˘đĽđ˘đŹ đŽđąđˇđđąđśđ°đŽđđźđż
Posts: 5,206
|
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.
|
|
Turnagain
âď¸
đđźđťđźđżđŽđđđ
Posts: 2,302
|
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
âď¸
đđđ§đđŤđđđ˘đĽđ˘đŹ đŽđąđˇđđąđśđ°đŽđđźđż
Posts: 5,206
|
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
âď¸
đđđ§đđŤđđđ˘đĽđ˘đŹ đŽđąđˇđđąđśđ°đŽđđźđż
Posts: 5,206
|
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
âď¸
đđđ§đđŤđđđ˘đĽđ˘đŹ đŽđąđˇđđąđśđ°đŽđđźđż
Posts: 5,206
|
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.
|
|
mrolonzo
âď¸
đđđđŤđ˘đđ˘đđ§
Posts: 869
|
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. |
|
Turnagain
âď¸
đđźđťđźđżđŽđđđ
Posts: 2,302
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ulios on May 11, 2022 0:56:30 GMT
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. You do not understand the magical hocus pocus necessary which only the Germans had at the time to perform such esoteric rituals. Nessie on the other hand understands as he has read "Alice in Wonderland" converted to "Wiernik in Treblinka". |
|
Turnagain
âď¸
đđźđťđźđżđŽđđđ
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on May 11, 2022 1:36:19 GMT
Ulios wrote:
LOL! Not only true but good for a giggle.
|
|
Nessie
âď¸
đđđ§đđŤđđđ˘đĽđ˘đŹ đŽđąđˇđđąđśđ°đŽđđźđż
Posts: 5,206
|
Post by Nessie on May 11, 2022 9:13:36 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. No, you have answered the points well and explained your doubts. So, how do we decide who is correct?
The answer is from the other evidence. It is because of the other evidence, that is independent of the witnesses, that I believe the witnesses are generally being truthful, despite some credibility issues.
|
|
Nessie
âď¸
đđđ§đđŤđđđ˘đĽđ˘đŹ đŽđąđˇđđąđśđ°đŽđđźđż
Posts: 5,206
|
Post by Nessie on May 11, 2022 9:25:50 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. Geophysics found the mass graves were not as large as described by the witnesses, meaning the witnesses overestimated the size of the graves, and you have admitted draglines can still dig large pits.
You have misunderstood the witness descriptions of hermetic sealing. You take them literally, forgetting that if a chamber is hermetically sealed, gas cannot enter it. So, clearly, the witnesses do not mean that the entire chamber was a hermetic seal. If you read their words, you will see they refer to hermetic sealing in relation to the doors and closing them. Hermetic seals around the doors and any vents makes sense. Any pressure issue will not cause the building structure to fail, that is idiocy from you. The engine will stall or a pipe rupture long before that, so your understanding is not as great as you think it is. In any case, a simple vent would solve pressure rises and there is the document relating to gas vans that discusses such.
It does not matter that you do not think it is possible to pile decomposed bodies on a grate over wood, set the wood alight and then the bodies will then catch alight and burn. Dresden, Ohrdruf and Tibet cremations prove that form of pyre will work. That the witnesses do not describe as much wood as you think they should, just means not as much wood as expected was needed to make the pyre burn. You also assume the cremations were complete and every body was burnt to ash, when there is evidence of larger remains and the need for a rendering machine.
That is why your arguments are from incredulity, just because you cannot work out how it was done, does not mean no one can. Your knowledge of excavations, Boyle's Law and thermodynamics is not so brilliant that you have the final say on what is physically possible or not. You are being very arrogant claiming only you know and everyone else is wrong.
|
|
Turnagain
âď¸
đđźđťđźđżđŽđđđ
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on May 11, 2022 10:04:16 GMT
Uh-huh, the witnesses just "mis-estimated" the size of the graves. I shouldn't take what the witnesses say "literally". Pressure issues didn't apply at Treblinka. Neither do the laws of thermodynamics don't apply to the cremations at Treblinka. I just can't work out how the impossibilities actually occurred. I don't account for the "mistakes", the "exaggerations" and I take what the witnesses said far to "literally". I don't even consider the "what ifs" and the "coulda woulda". Ya' gotta' be "flexible" to believe in the holyhoax.
|
|
