|
Post by ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐ด๐ป๐ธ on May 29, 2022 9:57:20 GMT
Nazgul, this is the thread about how to accurately assess witness truthfulness. Try to keep up. How do you do it properly with trained liars.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,206
|
Post by Nessie on May 29, 2022 14:23:50 GMT
Nazgul, this is the thread about how to accurately assess witness truthfulness. Try to keep up. How do you do it properly with trained liars. You do it with evidence that is independent of the witness.
|
|
|
Post by been_there on Jul 23, 2022 12:28:36 GMT
Credulous but reknowned professional holyco$t โpromulgatorโ Christopher Browning tries to justify why โeyewitnessesโ โ and their bogus testimony of things that they in fact didnโt โactually witnessโ โ are not relied upon by him and other professional holyco$t โpromulgatorsโ:
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,206
|
Post by Nessie on Jul 23, 2022 16:13:45 GMT
Credulous but reknowned professional holyco$t โpromulgatorโ Christopher Browning tries to justify why โeyewitnessesโ โ and their bogus testimony of things that they in fact didnโt โactually witnessโ โ are not relied upon by him and other professional holyco$t โpromulgatorsโ: Browning is correct not rely on claims made by people about events they have not witnessed. He is also correct to look at documentary records rather than eyewitness estimates to determine numbers of people and that it is wrong to single out any one witness or document as proof.
|
|
|
Post by been_there on Jul 23, 2022 20:24:58 GMT
Credulous but reknowned professional holyco$t โpromulgatorโ Christopher Browning tries to justify why โeyewitnessesโ โ and their bogus testimony of things that they in fact didnโt โactually witnessโ โ are not relied upon by him and other professional holyco$t โpromulgatorsโ: Browning is correct not rely on claims made by people about events they have not witnessed. He is also correct to look at documentary records rather than eyewitness estimates to determine numbers of people and that it is wrong to single out any one witness or document as proof. Another arrogant reply written from ignorance. It is relentless from this poseur. The DENIED reality is that the entire mass-gassing atrocity propaganda โ in the impossible numbers claimed, in the time claimed, at the sites claimed, by the improbable/impossible methods claimed โ is based upon nothing but bogus claims from people accepted by H-historians as reliable โ witnessesโ about alleged events they could not not have witnessed. I present an explanation, but I do so for other readers, not the poseur who appears to be incapable of understanding correctly anything that dents the compulsory โH-beliefโ.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,206
|
Post by Nessie on Jul 24, 2022 8:48:15 GMT
Browning is correct not rely on claims made by people about events they have not witnessed. He is also correct to look at documentary records rather than eyewitness estimates to determine numbers of people and that it is wrong to single out any one witness or document as proof. ... The DENIED reality is that the entire mass-gassing atrocity propaganda โ in the impossible numbers claimed, in the time claimed, at the sites claimed, by the improbable/impossible methods claimed โ is based upon nothing but bogus claims from people accepted by H-historians as reliable โ witnessesโ about alleged events they could not not have witnessed. .... You have just described the argument from incredulity, which is a logical fallacy. Just because you cannot work out and do not believe it was possible to kill the numbers claims, at the sites claimed, by the methods claimed, does not therefore mean it did not happen. In the same way, just because I believe it was possible, does not mean it did happen. Our belief is not how to assess witnesses. Yet again, you mix up credibility with truthfulness. Just because witnesses do not appear credible, does not mean they are not being truthful, in the same way some very credible witnesses can be pathological liars. Historians such as Browning assess the truthfulness of the claims, giving the example of numbers of people. Fact is, when people are asked to estimate the size of crowds and numbers of people, they are not very good at it. It is better to find documents that record numbers of people. It is better to use the Nazi records of how many were transported to TII, than witness estimates, to determine how many went to the camp. The Nazi records, are also more credible, because of meticulous record keeping, than witness estimates and guessing. A witness can be credible and a liar, or not credible and truthful, or credible and truthful, or not credible and a liar. Credibility is one way to determine truthfulness, but the more reliable method is corroboration, the checking of evidence independent of that witness. So, when Nazi documents records hundreds of thousands were sent to TII and witnesses claim the same, even if the totals do not match, the witness is telling the truth. As for the methods claimed, it was well within Nazi construction and engineering capabilities to build gas chambers, dig large pits, set pyres using rails and convert Kremas into gas chambers. There are examples of Nazi guilt gas chambers at most camps, they were used to delouse clothing. They dug many pits and other earthworks. Pyres using rails were set at Dresden and Ohrdruf. The company tasked with converting the Kremas for use as gas chambers kept records and the staff described how they did it. Just because the way the witnesses describe what they saw can be interpreted in a literal way, to make it appear unbelievable, does not make their claims unbelievable. Fact is, the witnesses are corroborated by other evidence. That is how we know their main claims about gassings are truthful.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,206
|
Post by Nessie on Jul 24, 2022 9:10:06 GMT
Using this example; As discussed above, witness estimations of numbers are not as accurate as documentary records, where documents come from counting and known numbers of people. Documents pertaining to the capacity, the number of corpses that could be created, give us a more accurate number; phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/topf/A Topf & Sons engineer wrote a memo in Sept 1942 about construction work at A-B which included the details; "I told him that at this time 3 double-muffle ovens are in operation, with a capacity of 250 per day. Further, currently under construction are 5 triple muffle ovens with a daily capacity of 800. Today and in the next few days, 2 eight-muffle ovens, each with a daily capacity of 800, will come on consignment, redirected from Mogilew. Mr K said that this number of muffles is not yet sufficient; we should deliver more ovens as quickly as possible." In June 1943, a memo was written by the head of A-B construction department that recorded the expected cremation capacity for A-B; "Crema 1 340 persons Crema 2 1,440 persons Crema 3 1,440 persons Crema 4 768 persons Crema 5 768 persons Total per 24 hours 4,756 persons" Another documentary source for the numbers killed is the camp records of arrivals and how many were selected and registered for work at A-B, or to be sent on to other camps. Arrivals minus those selected for work gives us the numbers gassed and cremated. The issue Renk raises is explained by there are multiple sources of evidence as to how many were killed at A-B. The Soviets took the highest estimates they could find and assumed that number was cremated every single day. Historians have conducted a more detailed study and found the numbers cremated varied significantly, with lower figures in 1943 and the highest figures in 1944 during the Hungarian action. So many were arriving from Hungary, that the Kremas were being totally over loaded and many cremations had to take place outside in pits. Because of the different sources of evidence, debate will continue as to how many were killed and cremated, but there is evidence to prove hundreds of thousands died and were cremated inside the A-B Kremas.
|
|
Turnagain
โ๏ธ
๐๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐๐
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on Jul 24, 2022 9:16:17 GMT
Nessie wrote:
No matter how detailed, how concisely and precisely a person explains their reason(s) for not believing the claims of the alleged eyewitnesses to the holyhoax Nessie simply stamps his feet and shrieks, "Fallacy! An argument of incredulity". Nessie demands that we all accept his excuses, his "what ifs" and "coulda woulda" or we're committing an argument of incredulity. An "argument of incredulity" is Nessie's catch-all for the myriad of irrefutable claims made by revisionists.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,206
|
Post by Nessie on Jul 24, 2022 9:38:25 GMT
Nessie wrote: No matter how detailed, how concisely and precisely a person explains their reason(s) for not believing the claims of the alleged eyewitnesses to the holyhoax Nessie simply stamps his feet and shrieks, "Fallacy! An argument of incredulity". Nessie demands that we all accept his excuses, his "what ifs" and "coulda woulda" or we're committing an argument of incredulity. An "argument of incredulity" is Nessie's catch-all for the myriad of irrefutable claims made by revisionists.
It has clearly gone right over your head, that each time you present your concise and precise reasons for not believing the witnesses, you are using the argument from incredulity.
What you need is evidence. You need witnesses who worked inside the AR camps or Kremas, contemporaneous documents, physical evidence from the sites etc to prove your claims.
|
|
Turnagain
โ๏ธ
๐๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐๐
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on Jul 24, 2022 9:48:52 GMT
Rosenberg's description of the graves was different from Wiernik's, Rajchman's and Krzepicki's description of the graves at Treblinka. Wiernik's description and number of graves was different from Rosenberg's, Rajchman's and Krzepicki's descriptions. They were ALL at odds with one another over the size and number of graves. Tell me why I should believe what they say without any of your "what ifs" and "coulda woulda" or any other excuse you have.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,206
|
Post by Nessie on Jul 24, 2022 12:01:36 GMT
Rosenberg's description of the graves was different from Wiernik's, Rajchman's and Krzepicki's description of the graves at Treblinka. Wiernik's description and number of graves was different from Rosenberg's, Rajchman's and Krzepicki's descriptions. They were ALL at odds with one another over the size and number of graves. Tell me why I should believe what they say without any of your "what ifs" and "coulda woulda" or any other excuse you have. The descriptions were not so different, as to make any significant difference. They all agree there were multiple massive mass graves in the Totenlager and at least one smaller mass grave in the Lazaret.
If you asked any four people who were inside TII to describe how many mass graves there were, where they were located and their size, you would get varying answers. For a start, not all of them were in every part of the camp. Then there is the normal issue over estimation of size and how witnesses are not great at such. It is not as if they were given tape measures and allowed to measure their size.
Your ignorance of normal witness behaviour is why you think the variation in what those four said is somehow suspect, when it is entirely expected and normal. I would be more suspicious if they all said the same thing. That would suggest collusion.
|
|
Turnagain
โ๏ธ
๐๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐๐
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on Jul 24, 2022 22:42:40 GMT
Nessie wrote: Uh-huh, that the alleged witnesses should agree to the approximate number and dimensions of the graves would be collusion. Rosenberg claimed that the graves were 120 meters long. Wiernik and Rajchman said 50 meters. Wiernik claimed five graves and Rajchman said eleven graves. Nessie says that the graves were 100 meters long. None of those graves could have been excavated with the M&H mB dragline.
However, they all agree that the graves at Treblinka were really, really big. I mean really, really BIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIG so my claims that the witnesses are lying, didn't actually see any mass graves, is just because I'm ignorant of "normal witness behavior". Sell your "normal witness behavior" down the street, Nessie. The witnesses were effing lying about mass graves at Treblinka.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,206
|
Post by Nessie on Jul 25, 2022 8:00:37 GMT
Nessie wrote: Uh-huh, that the alleged witnesses should agree to the approximate number and dimensions of the graves would be collusion. Rosenberg claimed that the graves were 120 meters long. Wiernik and Rajchman said 50 meters. Wiernik claimed five graves and Rajchman said eleven graves. Nessie says that the graves were 100 meters long. None of those graves could have been excavated with the M&H mB dragline. Wiernik did not say 5 graves, he had 5 graves in his out of scale representative model. Rajchmans 11 graves is within 1 of what geophysics found at the camp. I only used 100m as part of showing you how huge mass graves to bury 800,000 people would fit inside TII. None of the graves could be dug, to that size, by a dragline without other machinery or labourers. In any case, no witness said that dragline was used. The witnesses all agree on huge mass graves. Geophysics found some of those huge mass graves around the memorial, with the memorial covering most of the area where they said the mass graves were located.
|
|
Turnagain
โ๏ธ
๐๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐๐
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on Jul 25, 2022 9:23:29 GMT
Nessie wrote:
Nessie makes an excuse for Wiernik and doesn't mention Rosenberg. In her thesis, show me where CS-C claimed to have definitely found the gravesites and show us her GPR profile of the camp.
IOW you pulled the 5X20X100 meter graves out of your...er...hat.
The witnesses referred to "diggers" or "excavators". Germans call such equipment a "seilbagger" or just "bagger". "Seilbagger translates to "duty cycle crawler crane". "Dragline" is the American term for such equipment. In China they probably have another name for it.
Where in her thesis does CS-C claim to have definitely found the mass graves? Lukaszkiewcz said that the graves no longer existed.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,206
|
Post by Nessie on Jul 25, 2022 14:07:31 GMT
Nessie wrote: Nessie makes an excuse for Wiernik and doesn't mention Rosenberg. In her thesis, show me where CS-C claimed to have definitely found the gravesites and show us her GPR profile of the camp. Why do you need to be shown that again? You have been given multiple links to her report and details of what you ask for. How many graves did Rosenberg say there were? Only a complete idiot would dispute the digging of pits at a camp next to a quarry!!!!! They will have just used the same equipment that was used at the quarry. Not that pish again!!!! I know you are desperate when you ask me the same questions that have been answered on multiple occasions before. Lukaszkiewicz took witnesses such as Wiernik to the site to check to see if what Wiernik claimed was true. Wiernik claimed mass graves had been dug, and then later, they bodies were exhumed and cremated and mixed back into the ground. If Wiernik was correct, then Lukaszkiewicz would expect to find no mass graves full of corpses and instead he would expect to find excavated ground full of cremated remains. That is what he found. Wiernik's claims were confirmed. A mass grave that has had the bodies removed and those bodies cremated and mixed back into the ground, is not what anyone would think of as a mass graves anymore. It is just a site full of a mix of earth, ash and cremated remains. Luukaszkiewizc said that he found no mass graves, as in he found not mass graves full of bodies.
|
|