mrolonzo
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ญ๐ซ๐ข๐๐ข๐๐ง
Posts: 1,122
|
Post by mrolonzo on Jun 26, 2022 19:06:35 GMT
I say that revisionists say that these things are not good evidence in light of the surrounding other evidence. No, I repeatedly find deniers lying that there is no evidence. It is part of their self delusion. Could you quote that from someone or should it be taken on faith?
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,773
|
Post by Nessie on Jun 27, 2022 7:52:17 GMT
No, I repeatedly find deniers lying that there is no evidence. It is part of their self delusion. Could you quote that from someone or should it be taken on faith? This thread has numerous quotes, start from page 1. You have to learn to spend some time reading. You asked me to quote you something in another thread, that was just a few posts above your request. That proves you do not bother to read much, which is why you struggle to follow threads.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,773
|
Post by Nessie on Jun 27, 2022 8:50:26 GMT
Short form: "If it supports the holyhoax it's gospel truth" "If it's contrary to the holyhoax it's either a mistake or a lie". How about you give examples of that.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,773
|
Post by Nessie on Jun 27, 2022 9:02:25 GMT
๐คฆโโ๏ธ๐คช 1. This statement I am making now is true because I donโt like rhubarb crumble! 2. Fools may legitimately reject evidence if it contradicts a belief-system that is believed and cherished by the majority. 3. The planet Earth actually was flat โ and the stars, Sun and Moon revolved around it โ before and UNTIL Copernicus and Galileo published credible research proving otherwise! ๐คช๐๐คช๐๐คช๐ Logical non sequitur. A non sequitur is a fallacy in which a conclusion does not follow logically from the statements it claims to be based upon. Also known as irrelevant reason and fallacy of the consequent. Here is an example of a non sequitur.
The claim; if a witness describes something in a way that is physically impossible, therefore the witness lied and what they are describing did not happen.
That claim is a non sequitur, because there is another equally valid conclusion, which is that the witness was just not very good at describing what they saw, making it appear to be physically impossible. That means they can describe something in a way that makes it appear what they are describing is physically impossible, but they are not lying and it did happen.
For example, a witness describes how they think a gas chamber worked. That witness was never given technical details about the gassings, so they have to estimate and guess. The witness claims thousands were forced inside, which for the size of the chamber is impossible. There is the obvious possibility they have overestimated how many were gassed at a time. The witness claims the gassing was with a diesel engine. There is the obvious possibility they never saw the engine and just thought it was diesel. The witness does not mention any pressure vent. There is the obvious possibility they just did not notice the vent, or it was placed where they would not see it.
Therefore, the initial claim is wrong, and just because a witness describes something such that it is impossible to have happened the way they describe it, does not therefore mean they lied and it did not happen. There is an equally valid alternative, which is they were not very good at describing what they saw.
|
|
Turnagain
โ๏ธ
๐๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐๐
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on Jun 27, 2022 9:26:32 GMT
Nessie wrote:
Certainly, CS-C and Krege.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,773
|
Post by Nessie on Jun 27, 2022 9:57:35 GMT
Nessie wrote: Certainly, CS-C and Krege. C S-C is supported, because there is other evidence to support her claim of finding large pits.
Krege is not supported, because there is no other evidence to support his claim of no large pits.
A claim is supported if it is corroborated and not if there is no corroboration.
|
|
Turnagain
โ๏ธ
๐๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐๐
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on Jun 27, 2022 10:05:02 GMT
Neither Krege nor CS-C present the principle evidence, GPR profiles, for the graves. Both present only one GPR scan. Neither prove/disprove the existence of graves. You declare that CS-C is telling the gospel truth about graves and Krege is a fraud.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,773
|
Post by Nessie on Jun 27, 2022 10:18:10 GMT
Neither Krege nor CS-C present the principle evidence, GPR profiles, for the graves. Both present only one GPR scan. Neither prove/disprove the existence of graves. You declare that CS-C is telling the gospel truth about graves and Krege is a fraud. There is other evidence, from witnesses, a previous survey, photos and circumstantial evidence, that large pits were dug at TII.
There is no other evidence that hardly any digging took place at TII and that the ground is largely undisturbed and does not contain any large pits.
That is why I declare C S-C claim correct and Krege's to be wrong.
It is logical to believe corroborated evidence over a single uncorroborated claim.
|
|
mrolonzo
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ญ๐ซ๐ข๐๐ข๐๐ง
Posts: 1,122
|
Post by mrolonzo on Jun 27, 2022 10:20:43 GMT
Could you quote that from someone or should it be taken on faith? This thread has numerous quotes, start from page 1. You have to learn to spend some time reading. You asked me to quote you something in another thread, that was just a few posts above your request. That proves you do not bother to read much, which is why you struggle to follow threads. Right so Ephraim Kaye says there's nothing to see but presents an explanation for this correct?
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,773
|
Post by Nessie on Jun 27, 2022 10:25:11 GMT
This thread has numerous quotes, start from page 1. You have to learn to spend some time reading. You asked me to quote you something in another thread, that was just a few posts above your request. That proves you do not bother to read much, which is why you struggle to follow threads. Right so Ephraim Kaye says there's nothing to see but presents an explanation for this correct? Kaye was merely remarking on the relative lack of physical evidence, such as how little was left at TII. If people go there, there is a memorial to see and that is about it. That is because the Nazis destroyed and hid as much evidence as they could.
|
|
mrolonzo
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ญ๐ซ๐ข๐๐ข๐๐ง
Posts: 1,122
|
Post by mrolonzo on Jun 27, 2022 10:29:43 GMT
Right so Ephraim Kaye says there's nothing to see but presents an explanation for this correct? Kaye was merely remarking on the relative lack of physical evidence, such as how little was left at TII. If people go there, there is a memorial to see and that is about it. That is because the Nazis destroyed and hid as much evidence as they could. Or..... They didn't.
|
|
Turnagain
โ๏ธ
๐๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐๐
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on Jun 27, 2022 10:46:55 GMT
Nessie wrote:
I have just shown that large pits dug by the M&H dragline at Treblinka were an impossibility. That corroborates Krege's claim that there weren't any large graves at Treblinka. Lukaszkiewcz stated in his report that the mass graves at Treblinka no longer existed. You have the bogus claims of witnesses and nothing else to support your belief in CS-C. Neither CS-C nor Krege showed their GPR evidence to support their claims. However, CS-C supports the holyhoax and Krege doesn't so you claim CS-C to be gospel truth and Krege a fraud.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,773
|
Post by Nessie on Jun 27, 2022 12:47:53 GMT
Kaye was merely remarking on the relative lack of physical evidence, such as how little was left at TII. If people go there, there is a memorial to see and that is about it. That is because the Nazis destroyed and hid as much evidence as they could. Or..... They didn't. The evidence is that they did. Globocnik wrote to Himmler and told him that the camps had been left guarded and looking like farms. No other camps were demolished and planted over like the AR camps. There are no surviving documents from the camps themselves. Hofle made all camp staff sign secrecy agreements.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,773
|
Post by Nessie on Jun 27, 2022 12:57:58 GMT
Nessie wrote: I have just shown that large pits dug by the M&H dragline at Treblinka were an impossibility. An M&H dragline could dig a pit up to say 20m wide, 100m long and 4m deep. How is that not a large pit!!!! No, since a M&H dragline can dig what anyone, except you, would describe as a large pit!!! The mass graves of whole bodies, with that having been replaced with large areas of disturbed ground containing cremated remains, which corroborates witness claims of mass cremations and mixing the remains back into the ground and then grave robbing. [quote You have the bogus claims of witnesses and nothing else to support your belief in CS-C. Neither CS-C nor Krege showed their GPR evidence to support their claims. However, CS-C supports the holyhoax and Krege doesn't so you claim CS-C to be gospel truth and Krege a fraud. [/quote] No, C S-C is corroborated and Krege is not.
|
|
mrolonzo
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ญ๐ซ๐ข๐๐ข๐๐ง
Posts: 1,122
|
Post by mrolonzo on Jun 27, 2022 12:59:30 GMT
The evidence is that they did. Globocnik wrote to Himmler and told him that the camps had been left guarded and looking like farms. No other camps were demolished and planted over like the AR camps. There are no surviving documents from the camps themselves. Hofle made all camp staff sign secrecy agreements. Right. So mass murder remains un proven. In fact it was more about the financial operations which explains those documents that we do have as well as the camps position. Plus of course the actual non secret nature of camps like Belzec and the archeological findings.
|
|