|
|
Post by Turnagain on Jun 23, 2022 15:06:40 GMT
Nessie wrote:
Here is my reply to Nessie from rodoh.info/post/7785/thread
From page 27 of this thread:
Nessie is attempting his same sly lie of attributing the words from other sources to a quote from Mattogno. Hey, the quote was taken from M&G's book so good enough for holyhoax work. Just a little cheap-shot by Nessie but that's how he rolls.
That doesn't even come close to the graves described by the eyewitnesses. Nessie applies his "what if" and "coulda woulda" principle. "What if" the witnesses "mis-estimated"? Then the 26X17 meter pit "coulda" been a grave for burying Jews. Even though CS-C refused to reveal her GPR profiles we're supposed to take her word as gospel truth. (Yeah, I know, she showed ONE (1) GPR scan.) As stated previously, Nessie has a "what if" and a "coulda woulda" for all occasions.
|
|
Nessie
🦕
𝐕𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐬 𝗮𝗱𝗷𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿 (Nessies forum)
Posts: 3,255
|
Post by Nessie on Jun 23, 2022 15:32:13 GMT
Nessie wrote: Here is my reply to Nessie from rodoh.info/post/7785/thread From page 27 of this thread: Nessie is attempting his same sly lie of attributing the words from other sources to a quote from Mattogno. Hey, the quote was taken from M&G's book so good enough for holyhoax work. Just a little cheap-shot by Nessie but that's how he rolls. What is your problem with that evidence, when it is evidence of people LEAVING TII? It is shorter, wider and less deep than they describe. Both can be reasonably described as a large pit. You have never explained or evidenced what the Nazis were burying in such huge pits. It is evidence that does not suit you, you have no alternative evidence, so you think up excuses to dismiss the evidence. What is the more reliable method for determining possibility?
A The way a witness describes how they think something worked?
B What people were capable of at that time, in terms of the construction and engineering? |
|
|
|
Post by Turnagain on Jun 23, 2022 15:44:33 GMT
Nessie wrote:
My problem is with you misquoting sources for any reason. Is honesty a foreign concept to you?
Uh-huh and traveling 100 mph in a car and traveling 600 mph in a jetliner can both be reasonably described as traveling rapidly but they aren't remotely the same.
You haven't proven that those pits even exist. CS-C for damn sure hasn't.
|
|
Nessie
🦕
𝐕𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐬 𝗮𝗱𝗷𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿 (Nessies forum)
Posts: 3,255
|
Post by Nessie on Jun 23, 2022 15:55:04 GMT
Nessie wrote: My problem is with you misquoting sources for any reason. Is honesty a foreign concept to you? I admitted that I misattributed Mattogno as the finder of the evidence, when he was merely reporting a secondary source. Now, what is your problem with that evidence, when it is evidence of people LEAVING TII? False analogy. A more accurate analogy would be one witness states a car was doing 100 mph when another states it was doing 60mph, since all the witnesses and the geophysics evidence large pits. Corroborating witness, geophysical, photographic and circumstantial evidence is sufficient in all courts and for all historians and journalists, to prove something. That volume of evidence is only insufficient for you, because it proves what you do not want to believe. |
|
|
|
Post by Turnagain on Jun 23, 2022 16:15:46 GMT
Nessie wrote:
Mattogno characterizes Leszczynska's testimony as "worthless". Why should I distrust that judgement?
Bullsh!t.
Nobody corroborates Rajchman's graves. Your geophysical evidence is questionable at best and there's NO photographs of proven graves. What the hell are you calling "circumstantial" evidence? Neither is such horse frocky proof for ALL journalists and historians.
|
|
Nessie
🦕
𝐕𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐬 𝗮𝗱𝗷𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿 (Nessies forum)
Posts: 3,255
|
Post by Nessie on Jun 23, 2022 16:36:02 GMT
Nessie wrote: Mattogno characterizes Leszczynska's testimony as "worthless". Why should I distrust that judgement? Why is evidence of people LEAVING TII worthless? Witnesses describe large pits, geophysics found large pits that were smaller than described. That is equivalent to witnesses describing a car doing 100 mph when speed detection equipment had the car doing 60mph. It merely means witnesses overestimated. Lie. Everyone who worked inside TII corroborates there were large graves in the camp. You are not a reliable or trustworthy critique of the evidence. Lie. The 1944 aerial photo shows outlines in the Lazarette area of the camp, which witnesses state had mass graves. AR, whereby ghettos were emptied to TII and the people arriving mostly did not leave, but their property did. That is consistent with the mass murders. Lie. Corroborative evidence is bread and butter for journalists and historians. What is the more reliable method for determining possibility?
A The way a witness describes how they think something worked?
B What people were capable of at that time, in terms of the construction and engineering?
|
|
|
|
Post by mrolonzo on Jun 23, 2022 18:08:59 GMT
Nessie wrote: Mattogno characterizes Leszczynska's testimony as "worthless". Why should I distrust that judgement? Why is evidence of people LEAVING TII worthless? Witnesses describe large pits, geophysics found large pits that were smaller than described. That is equivalent to witnesses describing a car doing 100 mph when speed detection equipment had the car doing 60mph. It merely means witnesses overestimated. Lie. Everyone who worked inside TII corroborates there were large graves in the camp. You are not a reliable or trustworthy critique of the evidence. Lie. The 1944 aerial photo shows outlines in the Lazarette area of the camp, which witnesses state had mass graves. AR, whereby ghettos were emptied to TII and the people arriving mostly did not leave, but their property did. That is consistent with the mass murders. Lie. Corroborative evidence is bread and butter for journalists and historians. What is the more reliable method for determining possibility?
A The way a witness describes how they think something worked?
B What people were capable of at that time, in terms of the construction and engineering?
Mattogno describes this testimony as worthless. " Why is evidence of people LEAVING TII worthless?" LMAO. Testimony is not valued on what it says, even if it helps your case. It's value lies in its credibility. |
|
Nessie
🦕
𝐕𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐬 𝗮𝗱𝗷𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿 (Nessies forum)
Posts: 3,255
|
Post by Nessie on Jun 23, 2022 18:37:25 GMT
.... Mattogno describes this testimony as worthless. " Why is evidence of people LEAVING TII worthless?" LMAO. Testimony is not valued on what it says, even if it helps your case. It's value lies in its credibility. Testimony is valued on what it evidences about what happened. It is tested on its credibility and truthfulness, with truthfulness being the more important. |
|
|
|
Post by mrolonzo on Jun 23, 2022 21:13:22 GMT
.... Mattogno describes this testimony as worthless. " Why is evidence of people LEAVING TII worthless?" LMAO. Testimony is not valued on what it says, even if it helps your case. It's value lies in its credibility. Testimony is valued on what it evidences about what happened. It is tested on its credibility and truthfulness, with truthfulness being the more important. Without credibility evidence is worthless in assessing the truthfulness of the claim. |
|
Nessie
🦕
𝐕𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐬 𝗮𝗱𝗷𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿 (Nessies forum)
Posts: 3,255
|
Post by Nessie on Jun 24, 2022 8:23:58 GMT
Testimony is valued on what it evidences about what happened. It is tested on its credibility and truthfulness, with truthfulness being the more important. Without credibility evidence is worthless in assessing the truthfulness of the claim. That only applies to witness evidence. If a witness is not credible, but their main claims are corroborated by other evidence, then that witness is being truthful. |
|
