|
|
Post by been_there on May 27, 2022 13:03:19 GMT
|
|
Turnagain
โ๏ธ
๐๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐๐
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on May 28, 2022 1:11:17 GMT
Nessie claims to have been a trial witness countless times and implies that he's an expert in court procedure. So, in court does the accused have to prove what actually happened or does he just have to prove his innocence?
For example:
A murder was committed at 4:00 pm on a Friday afternoon and a suspect is identified by a witness and accused of murder. However, the accused can prove with absolute certainty that he wasn't anywhere near the murder scene on that Friday and the witness is either mistaken or lying. Moreover, the witness has a long standing grudge against the accused. The accused is found not guilty and released from custody.
You apparently claim that the accused must not only show that it was impossible for him to commit the murder but he must solve the crime and present the guilty party to the court before he can be exonerated and released. That is precisely the case when you demand that revisionists present evidence/proof of what happened to the Jews during WW II.
There's Vrba and his claim that up to 6 containers of Zyklon B were dumped into the alleged gas chamber. There's the absurd claims of the Kula columns. At Treblinka we have the claims of the hermetically sealed gas chambers and hundreds of thousands of cadavers being completely cremated using only twigs, brush etc. for fuel. You attempt to brush all of that aside as "arguments from incredulity". The fact is that revisionists DON'T have to prove what happened to the Jews during WW II. It's only necessary to prove that the Germans didn't murder the Jews en masse with poison gas and THAT HAS BEEN DONE, your spurious claim of "arguments from incredulity" notwithstanding.
|
|
|
|
Post by been_there on Jun 3, 2022 10:51:44 GMT
๐คฆโโ๏ธ๐
COMPARE THE LOGIC:
In other words both the statements employ the โabsence of evidenceโ logical fallacy.
Reminder: The above fallacy of logic can not be justified by arguing โthere is no evidence unicorns exist, but there is evidence that mass-graves can existโ.
|
|
|
|
Post by been_there on Jun 3, 2022 11:51:11 GMT
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,206 
|
Post by Nessie on Jun 3, 2022 19:04:46 GMT
I would ask for evidence of being able to run that fast.
If no evidence was forthcoming, I would dismiss the claim as unevidenced.
If the evidence was forthcoming and the actual time was, say, 13 seconds, I would dismiss the claim as false.
If the evidence was forthcoming and the time was, say, 9.58s, I would accept the claims as proved, because the timing is so close and the point of being very fast is proved. |
|
|
|
Post by been_there on Jun 3, 2022 19:13:14 GMT
I would ask for evidence of being able to run that fast. If no evidence was forthcoming, I would dismiss the claim as unevidenced. If the evidence was forthcoming and the actual time was, say, 13 seconds, I would dismiss the claim as false. If the evidence was forthcoming and the time was, say, 9.58s, I would accept the claims as proved, because the timing is so close and the point of being very fast is proved. Dishonestly and/or stupidly moved the goalposts! FAIL! Read it again, dumkopf, |
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,206
|
Post by Nessie on Jun 3, 2022 19:15:40 GMT
Nessie claims to have been a trial witness countless times and implies that he's an expert in court procedure. So, in court does the accused have to prove what actually happened or does he just have to prove his innocence? In most court procedures, the answer is neither, it is up to the prosecution to evidence and prove the claim the prosecution is making. Court procedures and rules of evidence vary from country to country, but in many countries, if the accused claims an alibi or other defence, it is up to the accused to evidence it. In your example, the accused had to evidence his alibi that he was elsewhere. What you forget, is that once that accused is found not guilty, there is still an unsolved crime. The police and prosecution now have to find who the actual murderer was. You are also pretending that investigating history is the same as investigating crime. History is all about establishing what happened. Revisionists often try to wriggle out of that, but some revisionists understand that they should evidence and prove what happened. Hence the likes of Mattogno claims the Kremas were in fact used for hygiene purposes and Eric Hunt claimed the AR camps were transit camps. You also make that claim and try to pass off evidence of selections. You express incredulity at the way witnesses describe what they saw, and then claim you are not being incredulous!!!! If you want any credibility, you do no need to prove what happened. You have not proved there were no gassings, you have merely argued why you do not believe there were any gassings. |
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,206
|
Post by Nessie on Jun 3, 2022 19:21:36 GMT
๐คฆโโ๏ธ๐ COMPARE THE LOGIC: In other words both the statements employ the โabsence of evidenceโ logical fallacy. Reminder: The above fallacy of logic can not be justified by arguing โ there is no evidence unicorns exist, but there is evidence that mass-graves can existโ.
If the result of the geophysical survey of TII by C S-C had been that GPR and electrical resistance surveys had found mostly undisturbed ground, with maybe a few small pits that were found to contain rubbish, the logical conclusion would be that no mass graves had been dug.
The absence of geophysical evidence of large pits, and the presence of undisturbed ground, would prove no large pits had been dug.
Would you agree with those statements?
|
|
Turnagain
โ๏ธ
๐๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐๐
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on Jun 3, 2022 19:40:54 GMT
Nessie wrote: Right, but he didn't have to prove who committed the murder to prove his innocence. Only in your imagination must revisionists prove what happened to the Jews if they weren't gassed, buried, exhumed, cremated and reburied at Treblinka.
CS-C's so called proofs are so equivocal as to be useless.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,206
|
Post by Nessie on Jun 3, 2022 19:42:18 GMT
It is a claim and since you were unable to evidence your claim, I will do it for you. This article is from 2010 and it is about the need to start preserving the enigma intercepts before they are lost; www.computerworld.com/article/2518647/archive-project-will-digitize-wwii-enigma-messages.html"Preserving the core of Bletchley Park's heritage -- the intercepted messages -- was far down the list of priorities, he said. Those messages are still in the building's archive after more than six decades, neatly typed on trimmed slips of paper and glued into fragile, decaying books. Also in the archive are drawers full of maps and a system of index cards used to classify messages by subject." The article does not say how many intercepts there are and I cannot find any more up to date details. However, the Hofle Telegram was found in the National Archive. It appears that archive has ended up also storing Bletchley intercepts; enigma.hoerenberg.com/index.php?cat=The%20U534%20messages&page=ULTRA"Ultra was the designation adopted by British military intelligence in June 1941 for wartime signals intelligence obtained by breaking high-level encrypted enemy radio and teleprinter communications at the Government Code and Cypher School (GC&CS) at Bletchley Park. Many of the U534 Enigma messages can be found in the DEFE3 documents, published by the The National Archives (Digital-Microfilm). All information regarding the National Archive are published under the Open Government Licence OGLv2.0 (Crown Licence)." It is not clear how many there are, but a search of the National Archives for documents relating to the Holocaust finds this; www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/holocaust/Not all of the documents are Bletchley intercepts, but what is clear, is that it is not self evident that every single intercept has been checked for references to AR, or any other mass killing operation. |
|
|
|
Post by been_there on Jun 3, 2022 22:33:01 GMT
That doesnโt contradict anything I wrote. Isnโt this refusal to undersand or be corrected in the previous reply, further damning proof of what I have recently been pointing out about the tenuous grip on reality that this person has? |
|
Turnagain
โ๏ธ
๐๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐๐
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on Jun 4, 2022 2:29:23 GMT
been-there wrote:
I think Nessie is trying to apply the same "reasoning" to the Hoefle telegram that he does for the outbound train schedules for passenger trains out of Treblinka. I haven't searched every available archive for train schedules and you haven't searched the entire British archives so you can't say that there's only one such decoded telegram. Since there "could" be more such telegrams you can't say that it's the only telegram.
|
|
|
|
Post by been_there on Jun 4, 2022 6:54:41 GMT
been-there wrote: I think Nessie is trying to apply the same "reasoning" to the Hoefle telegram that he does for the outbound train schedules for passenger trains out of Treblinka. I haven't searched every available archive for train schedules and you haven't searched the entire British archives so you can't say that there's only one such decoded telegram. Since there "could" be more such telegrams you can't say that it's the only telegram. Yeah. But I wouldnโt call it 'reasoningโ. As I had already acknowledged that possibility when I wrote this: Proving yet again that it is not possible to reason with this person. If someone canโt acknowledge the fact (not โclaimโ) that there is currently only one known intercept purporting to be about extermination of Jews in the Bletchley archives, then they are clearly not operating sanely. |
|
Turnagain
โ๏ธ
๐๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐๐
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on Jun 4, 2022 7:07:55 GMT
In my best imitation of Nessie, "You're just trying to come up with an excuse to not believe the evidence".
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,206
|
Post by Nessie on Jun 4, 2022 8:30:56 GMT
I would ask for evidence of being able to run that fast. If no evidence was forthcoming, I would dismiss the claim as unevidenced. If the evidence was forthcoming and the actual time was, say, 13 seconds, I would dismiss the claim as false. If the evidence was forthcoming and the time was, say, 9.58s, I would accept the claims as proved, because the timing is so close and the point of being very fast is proved. Dishonestly and/or stupidly moved the goalposts! FAIL! Read it again, dumkopf, The question was "Please explain how you would dismiss this claim without committing the "fallacy of incredulity""
The answer is that I would investigate the claim to see if it was evidenced or not. Asking for claims to be evidenced is best practice and should be standard.
|
|
