Nessie
✍️
𝐕𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐬 𝗮𝗱𝗷𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿
Posts: 5,206
|
Post by Nessie on Jun 24, 2023 15:40:34 GMT
Revisionist logic. That witness is making incredible claims I cannot believe, therefore they lied.
The problem with that claim is that believability and credibility are not the same as truthfulness. A witness can be believable, credible and a total liar. A witness can be unbelievable, incredible and telling the truth. If a witness is prone to using exaggerated descriptives, figures of speech and is repeatedly interviewed, even decades after the event, it will be easy to find their claims incredible and unbelievable. But that does not therefore mean they lied.
The actual test of witness evidence is corroboration. Is the witness backed up by evidence independent of them? For example, if a witness claims mass arrivals of people at a certain camp, and there are documents recording mass arrivals at that camp, then the witness is corroborated. It does not matter if the witnesses estimate of how many arrived is different from the document, studies prove witnesses are poor at estimating sizes of crowds.
That is why arguing a claim is too unbelievable to accept, without providing evidence as to what did happen, is logically flawed.
|
|
𝝥𝝰𝘇𝗴𝝻𝝸
🕵️
𝕲𝖊𝖍𝖊𝖎𝖒𝖕𝖔𝖑𝖎𝖟𝖊𝖎
Posts: 1,457
|
Post by 𝝥𝝰𝘇𝗴𝝻𝝸 on Jun 24, 2023 21:22:27 GMT
That is why arguing a claim is too unbelievable to accept, without providing evidence as to what did happen, is logically flawed. Turnagain comes to mind here with the post about the little boy cycling to the Moon. What did the little boy do if he existed, he most likely stayed put on earth. How would Nessie evidence this?
|
|
Nessie
✍️
𝐕𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐬 𝗮𝗱𝗷𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿
Posts: 5,206
|
Post by Nessie on Jun 25, 2023 7:45:24 GMT
That is why arguing a claim is too unbelievable to accept, without providing evidence as to what did happen, is logically flawed. Turnagain comes to mind here with the post about the little boy cycling to the Moon. What did the little boy do if he existed, he most likely stayed put on earth. How would Nessie evidence this? By tracing and interviewing the boy and getting him to replicate his cycle to the moon. By tracing and interviewing an expert in gravity to prove a boy lacks the power to break free of gravity and cycle into the air, let alone the moon.
|
|
|
Post by been_there on Jun 25, 2023 8:34:45 GMT
... Nessie keeps using the exact same illogical, literally stupid and repeatedly refuted ‘revisionists have no evidence’ argument, and is using it in every topic thread.… You are wrong that the Zundel trial was the first where such people as Jews appeard for the prosecution. Plenty of Jewish eyewitnesses to gassings had given evidence in past trials. Vrba, who was used at the Zundel trial also gave evidence in the 1964 Frankfurt "Auschwitz" trial. "Holocaust experts" were not used in those criminal trials, as primary evidence was available. Historians were used at the Zundel trial to give evidence as to what the history was being denied. This is just more idiocy or/and deceitful avoidance of the point. Nessie is attempting a transparent logical fallacy of strawman distortion. I never stated that ”the Zundel trial was the first where such people as Jews appeared for the prosecution”. I stated that it was the first trial where ‘eye-witness’ testimony of those Jews who were appearing for the prosecution were subjected to critical cross-examination.
|
|
Nessie
✍️
𝐕𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐬 𝗮𝗱𝗷𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿
Posts: 5,206
|
Post by Nessie on Jun 25, 2023 8:41:00 GMT
… You are wrong that the Zundel trial was the first where such people as Jews appeard for the prosecution. Plenty of Jewish eyewitnesses to gassings had given evidence in past trials. Vrba, who was used at the Zundel trial also gave evidence in the 1964 Frankfurt "Auschwitz" trial. "Holocaust experts" were not used in those criminal trials, as primary evidence was available. Historians were used at the Zundel trial to give evidence as to what the history was being denied. This is just more idiocy or/and deceitful avoidance of the point. Nessie is attempting a transparent logical fallacy of strawman distortion. I never stated that ”the Zundel trial was the first where such people as Jews appeared for the prosecution”. I stated that it was the first trial where ‘eye-witness’ testimony of those Jews who were appearing for the prosecution were subjected to critical cross-examination. You said cross examination which you have now changed to critical cross examination.
Jewish witnesses at the Demjanjuk trial were critically cross examined and their identification of him disputed by critical cross examination.
|
|
|
Post by been_there on Jun 25, 2023 9:05:20 GMT
This is just more idiocy or/and deceitful avoidance of the point. Nessie is attempting a transparent logical fallacy of strawman distortion. I never stated that ”the Zundel trial was the first where such people as Jews appeared for the prosecution”. I stated that it was the first trial where ‘eye-witness’ testimony of those Jews who were appearing for the prosecution were subjected to critical cross-examination. You said cross examination which you have now changed to critical cross examination.
Jewish witnesses at the Demjanjuk trial were critically cross examined and their identification of him disputed by critical cross examination.
Another dishonest dodge. You are dishonestly dodging that YOU misrepresented what I said. Can you be honest and admit that? My point was always that ’eye-witnesses’ never faced critical cross-examination before. That should have been obvious but I predicted you would dishonestly quibble so I made that clearer. At Nuremberg, at the Eichmann trial and all the post-war show trials I am not aware of any genuine, critical cross-examination. If you know of any YOU should provide evidence of that instead of dodging the issue with childish and stupid strawman avoidance. Start a new thread and post evidence of that. Demjanjuk was first put on trial in 1986. Zündel’s first trial was 1985. Which proves you are not only wrong but are repeatedly arguing from ignorance.
|
|
Nessie
✍️
𝐕𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐬 𝗮𝗱𝗷𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿
Posts: 5,206
|
Post by Nessie on Jun 25, 2023 14:03:43 GMT
You said cross examination which you have now changed to critical cross examination.
Jewish witnesses at the Demjanjuk trial were critically cross examined and their identification of him disputed by critical cross examination.
Another dishonest dodge. You are dishonestly dodging that YOU misrepresented what I said. Can you be honest and admit that? My point was always that ’eye-witnesses’ never faced critical cross-examination before. That should have been obvious but I predicted you would dishonestly quibble so I made that clearer. So no dodge or misrepresentation from me then, as you admit to not making yourself clearer and you moved the goal posts from cross-examined to critically cross-examined. You are "not aware of" means you have not bothered to read through all the trials to see what the cross-examinations were like, so your claim there was no critical cross-examination is unevidenced. Zundell's first trial was from 1985-88. Demjanjuk's first trial ran from 1986-1988. I just cited Demjanjuk as one where I know there was critical cross-examination. You are the one who makes the claim, no critical cross-examination, so logically the burden of proof is on you.
|
|
|
Post by been_there on Jun 25, 2023 14:43:49 GMT
Another dishonest dodge. You are dishonestly dodging that YOU misrepresented what I said. Can you be honest and admit that? My point was always that ’eye-witnesses’ never faced critical cross-examination before. That should have been obvious but I predicted you would dishonestly quibble so I made that clearer. So no dodge or misrepresentation from me then, as you admit to not making yourself clearer and you moved the goal posts from cross-examined to critically cross-examined. Yes, another clear and transparent, dishonest dodge from you. No, I admit I think the meaning was obvious. I admit that I think only someone extremely stupid or extremely dishonest would not understand the intended meaning. Therefore as I think you are both I felt it necessary to make the meaning crystal clear. That OBVIOUS MEANING being that before the Zündel trial of 1985 no Jewish eye-witness testimony was ever critically cross-examined before. Rudolf Vrba is considered one of the first named eye-witnesses to report the alleged exterminatory mass-gassings at Auschwitz, and under critical cross-examination at the Zündel trial of 1985 he was FORCED to confess that for years he’d lied and that he had in fact never witnessed it. He admitted that lie with another one, that he had used ”artistic licence” when he falsely claimed he had. 🤦♂️ If there had been any genuine cross-examination, the lies of the mass-gassing lie-witnesses would have been exposed BEFORE 1985. As that didn’t happen, the logical conclusion is that there never had been genuine cross-examination before. So that is THE FIRST CASE where one of the lying Jewish ’lie-witnesses’ famously was exposed as a holyhoax liar in court, under oath. And that occurred because NEVER BEFORE had any other claimed eye-witness been subjected to that kind of cross-examination before. SUMMARY: Here is another ’lesson in logic’. Plus Nessie is yet again proved to be in denial of reality. 1. This is the exact same illogical and dishonest nonsense you applied to the Höfle telegram. 2. I have actually read huge amounts of trial transcripts when I first investigated this holocaust hoax. Most notably reams of the Nuremberg trials, the Bergen-Belsen trials, the Eichman show trial, etc. 3. If you knew of any critical cross-examination you would produce it. But you are dishonesly bluffing, as you know there isn’t any. You are confirming my point whilst simultaneously refusing to concede. Which is shamefully dishonest and stupid behaviou.
|
|
Nessie
✍️
𝐕𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐬 𝗮𝗱𝗷𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿
Posts: 5,206
|
Post by Nessie on Jun 25, 2023 15:56:15 GMT
So no dodge or misrepresentation from me then, as you admit to not making yourself clearer and you moved the goal posts from cross-examined to critically cross-examined. Yes, another clear and transparent, dishonest dodge from you. No, I admit I think the meaning was obvious. I admit that I think only someone extremely stupid or extremely dishonest would not understand the intended meaning. Therefore as I think you are both I felt it necessary to make the meaning crystal clear. That OBVIOUS MEANING being that before the Zündel trial of 1985 no Jewish eye-witness testimony was ever critically cross-examined before. You made a mistake, which you admit to, and now you are trying to point score and labour the point. I answered your original claim in a reasonable, direct way and then when you altered your claim, I have answered that as well. You are trying to point score, because you are deflecting from the fact you made an unevidenced claim about the nature of Jewish witnesses being cross-examined. Here is Vrba's testimony from the Zundell trial; aaargh.vho.org/engl/vrba3.htmlWhere did he admit that he had lied about seeing a gassing? What Christie does is clarify the hearsay that Vrba reported in his book. Please quote the part where he Vrba was forced to confess to lying about seeing a gassing. Then we can discuss that further. Your conclusion is based on assumed premise. You have assumed the eyewitnesses to gassings all lied. You have assumed that "genuine" cross-examination would reveal those lies. You are wrong with both premise. Vrba was asked about his book "I Cannot Forgive", and as he said, when asked "All the contents are true?", he replied "I wouldn't answer in a direct way to this question, because this is a work of literature, and not a document...". What Christie goes on to do is show how much of the book is hearsay. Vrba genuinely believes what he was told, he was not exposed as a liar. If a witness is wrong, but they genuinely believe they are right and they are telling the truth, the court has not exposed that person as a liar, they have just exposed them as being wrong. You made a logically flawed argument and then showed your ignorance about courts and witnesses. How so? Trying to get actual evidence out of you is usually very difficult. I have had the same difficulty with everyone I have debated here, from Bob, to Werd, to Turnagain, to you. You all love to make assertions and claims and then when I ask for evidence, you get upset. Remember, me asking for evidence is not me claiming you are wrong or lying. It is me giving you the chance to produce evidence, to then discuss if you are wrong, or lying, or telling the truth. How do I know you are not bluffing? You constantly lie about there being "no evidence" when we only ever discuss that evidence!!!!! I doubt you know much about cross-examination and your use of the term "critical" suggests you think cross-examination is only "critical" when it is trying to catch a witness out and prove they are lying. You said Vrba was the first witness to be the subject of critical cross-examination, for which you have offered zero evidence. You have claimed that Vrba was forced to confess he lied, but you offered no evidence of that. As is normal with you, you hate being asked to evidence your claims and you think being asked to evidence your claims is me claiming you are wrong. I cited Demjanjuk's trial off the top of my head, as an example of critical cross-examination and it has prompted you to go into more detail and hopefully you will start to produce evidence.
|
|
|
Post by been_there on Jun 26, 2023 12:06:22 GMT
Yes, another clear and transparent, dishonest dodge from you. No, I admit I think the meaning was obvious. I admit that I think only someone extremely stupid or extremely dishonest would not understand the intended meaning. Therefore as I think you are both I felt it necessary to make the meaning crystal clear. That OBVIOUS MEANING being that before the Zündel trial of 1985 no Jewish eye-witness testimony was ever critically cross-examined before. You made a mistake, which you admit to, and now you are... [illogical nonsense snipped]… Here is Vrba's testimony from the Zundell trial; aaargh.vho.org/engl/vrba3.htmlWhere did he admit that he had lied about seeing a gassing? What Christie does is clarify the hearsay that Vrba reported in his book. Please quote the part where he Vrba was forced to confess to lying about seeing a gassing. Then we can discuss that further. This thread is called ’lessons in logic’. Stop trying to take every topic off-topic. Start a new thread if you want to discuss Vrba’s lies. I will prove my point there. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. BACK ON TOPIC: LESSONS IN LOGIC: I have demonstrated using logic that the Zündel trial of January 1985 was the first time a Jewish person claiming to be a ’holocaust’ eye-witness was subjected to genuine CROSS-EXAMINATION. Notice that I have refrained from using the adjective ’ critical’ cross-examination in deference to Nessie’s childish and pedantic quibbling. It makes no difference to the point she* is avoiding, as logically and OBVIOUSLY if a court room examination of a witness isn’t critical then it isn’t genuine cross-examination. Nessie will no doubt find that simple logic hard to follow as we know both honesty and logical thinking are not her* strong-points. 😉 E.g. Nessie contested the 1985 trial of Zündel being the first time a jewish ’holocaust eye-witness’ was cross-examined by insinuating the 1986 show-trial of John Demjanjuk predated it. But as any normally intelligent person knows, 1985 is chrono logically BEFORE 1986. We will see if Nessie is able to understand now her error and to confess her* stupidity in asserting 1986 came before 1985? Or if she will try and dodge this also? 🤔🙂 [Notice I am reverting to using the correct pronoun for the avatar Nessie as I see no need to condescend to Nessie’s whims if she refuses to discuss simple points — such as this one — honestly, intelligently and fairly.] LESSONS IN LOGIC: If someone disputed the Zündel trial being the first time there had been genuine cross-examination of a jewish, holocaust-survivor eye-witness: a.) would they produce evidence of an earlier trial or trials as an example of where and when that had occurred previously to prove their point? b.) would they refer to a later trial and although accepting the chronology STILL insist numerous times that it was earlier? c.) none of the above, but still insist they knew better. QUESTION: logically speaking which of the above is the most logically correct response.
|
|
Nessie
✍️
𝐕𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐬 𝗮𝗱𝗷𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿
Posts: 5,206
|
Post by Nessie on Jun 26, 2023 16:40:59 GMT
BACK ON TOPIC: LESSONS IN LOGIC: I have demonstrated using logic that the Zündel trial of January 1985 was the first time a Jewish person claiming to be a ’holocaust’ eye-witness was subjected to genuine CROSS-EXAMINATION. Again, you try to use logic, when you should be using evidence. That is a revisionist trait, their supposed logic is presented in lieu of evidence. To evidence it was the first time a Jewish person claiming to be an eyewitness was subjected to "genuine" cross-examination, first you need to define what is a "genuine" cross-examination. Then you need to produce evidence from every single cross-examination of a Jewish witness at every single Holocaust related trial prior to the Zundel trial. A claim made in ignorance of court procedure and the Holocaust trials. The defence gets to dispute the evidence of prosecution witnesses, when they have evidence to dispute that witness. Normally, that is when the accused and the witness are at odds with each other and they are making opposite claims. In the case of the Nazi trials, the accused Nazis admitted to the gassings and so the defence will not and cannot call the witness a liar about gassing, because their client has admitted to that gassing. No matter how many times it is pointed out to you, to dispute the Jewish witness claims, you need evidence, not argument. Defence lawyers who merely call the witness a liar, without any evidence they are lying, usually get into trouble themselves. When Vrba was cross-examined, the main trust of that cross-examination was about what had been presented as eyewitness evidence, when it was hearsay and to what extant his book was eyewitness and what was narrative. The actual gassings, because they are so well evidenced, were not disputed by the defence. Your argument is weak, so as usual, you resort to bullying and abuse. No, I will not dodge that. I merely presented Demjanjuk as an example of another critical cross-examination, as the start of your evidence gathering to prove your claim all prior trials had no critical cross-examination. I made a mistake over chronology, as the trials overlapped and lasted years. You are obviously not very confident in your initial claim, as you have changed it to "genuine" without defining what a "genuine cross-examination" is. You are arguing that because I disagree with you, you are entitled to bully and abuse me. You constantly seek to belittle and annoy those who disagree with you. The many sources about Nessie the monster, use "it" rather than "she". I have said to I wish to be referred to as "he", so you deliberately use other than that, which proves you are a bully, as it is bullying behaviour to keep on doing something you know shows them disrespect and contempt, when asked to stop. When I was asked to refer to you as a revisionist, I have done so. I show Scott and the moderators respect, you show disrespect, which speaks to the type of person you are. That claim shows how little you know about court procedure. Do you think that any of the lawyers who defended a Nazi during a Holocaust trial, would dispute Jewish claims to gas chambers, when their own clients did not dispute there were gas chambers? Your logic is flawed, because what you likely call a "genuine" cross-examination could not happen, because the Nazis did not dispute gassings! That you do not understand that, shows how little you know about trials. 1 - show where Vrba was exposed as a liar. He was caught out mixing hearsay with eyewitness claims, he was not caught out lying about gassings having happened. 2 - show your evidence that no Jewish witness in any prior Holocaust trial, had been challenged about lying or their use of hearsay, exaggeration, story telling narratives.
Do you know what happens prior to a witness giving evidence?
How so? What are you talking about? Define "critical". I have explained why no Jewish witness was accused of lying about gassings taking place at specific camps. I have explained that cross-examination found Vrba mixed hearsay with eyewitness evidence and witness identification as disputed at the Demjanjuk trial, so where is your evidence that prior to the Zundel trial, every single claim made by a Jewish witness in court, was accepted without question? You made a claim, I have asked you to evidence it, you are trying to reverse the burden of proof. I have not insisted the Demjanjuk trial was earlier. The two trials overlapped each other, but, as far as I can find, Vrba was cross-examined prior to the disputed identification cross-examination at the Demjanjuk trial. You are labouring the point again, to deflect from your burden of proof. I do know better than you about how trials are conducted, which is why you did not understand about how the Nazi defence lawyers could cross-examine witnesses. They cannot call them liars about the gassings, because the Nazi accused did not dispute there were gassings. How do you not know or understand that!!!!!! Logic is trumped by evidence, when it comes to determining who has lied and who has told the truth. If you knew anything about courts, history and evidence, you would know that.
|
|
Nessie
✍️
𝐕𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐬 𝗮𝗱𝗷𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿
Posts: 5,206
|
Post by Nessie on Jun 26, 2023 16:48:17 GMT
You constantly lie about there being "no evidence" when we only ever discuss that evidence!!!!! Despite discussing the evidence on the table, there is a constant demand for more evidence from the posters opponents, then usually an off topic comment to distract. This forum is not a court of law so the paradigms attempted by the poster are irrelevant. It is revisionists who pretend they are in court and defending the Nazis. As been-there above has shown, he knows nothing about cross-examination, in particular the cross-examination of Jewish witnesses at Holocaust trials. It is what the whole Holocaust denial debate is about! How is gassing not relevant!!!!! Show evidence to prove 14f13 applied to gassings at A-B. Gas was used as part of that programme. Where did Vrba claim that was a precise plan of a Krema? How so?
|
|
Nessie
✍️
𝐕𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐬 𝗮𝗱𝗷𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿
Posts: 5,206
|
Post by Nessie on Jun 27, 2023 11:42:31 GMT
You accept shooting of partisans, including Jews in the east and the euthanasia programme for those unable to work, you do not accept the mass killing of those not needed for work, as part of the policy to rid occupied territory of Jews, by various means. You lack evidence of the Nazis accommodating millions of Jews in 1945, the people not needed for work, who you say were not killed. Partisans are civilian combatants and by law legally executed; this includes those who aid and assist. The description by Vrba is identical to 14f13. Reports of mass shootings listed partisans separately to Jews and all Jews, including women and children were shot. fcit.usf.edu/holocaust/resource/document/DocJager.htmThe euthanasia project 14f13 was for the disabled. Everyone not needed for work, disabled or not, were killed at the AR camps and A-B. To keep this on topic, your claims are not logically conclusive and do not follow the evidence. Another example is here; You have not produced any evidence as to what camps were open in 1945, their sizes when liberated, those responsible for the camps simply abandoning them and people just dissipating, the numbers returning home to claim homes, businesses and other property. It is not logical to believe your version of events, when there is no evidence.
|
|
|
Post by been_there on Jun 27, 2023 17:12:16 GMT
BACK ON TOPIC: LESSONS IN LOGIC: I have demonstrated using logic that the Zündel trial of January 1985 was the first time a Jewish person claiming to be a ’holocaust’ eye-witness was subjected to genuine CROSS-EXAMINATION. Notice that I have refrained from using the adjective ’ critical’ cross-examination in deference to Nessie’s childish and pedantic quibbling. It makes no difference to the point she* is avoiding, as logically and OBVIOUSLY if a court room examination of a witness isn’t critical then it isn’t genuine cross-examination. Nessie will no doubt find that simple logic hard to follow as we know both honesty and logical thinking are not her* strong-points. 😉 E.g. Nessie contested the 1985 trial of Zündel being the first time a jewish ’holocaust eye-witness’ was cross-examined by insinuating the 1986 show-trial of John Demjanjuk predated it. But as any normally intelligent person knows, 1985 is chrono logically BEFORE 1986. We will see if Nessie is able to understand now her error and to confess her* stupidity in asserting 1986 came before 1985? Or if she will try and dodge this also? 🤔🙂 [Notice I am reverting to using the correct pronoun for the avatar Nessie as I see no need to condescend to Nessie’s whims if she refuses to discuss simple points — such as this one — honestly, intelligently and fairly.] LESSONS IN LOGIC: If someone disputed the Zündel trial being the first time there had been genuine cross-examination of a jewish, holocaust-survivor eye-witness: a.) would they produce evidence of an earlier trial or trials as an example of where and when that had occurred previously to prove their point? b.) would they refer to a later trial and although accepting the chronology STILL insist numerous times that it was earlier? c.) none of the above, but still insist they knew better. QUESTION: logically speaking which of the above is the most logically correct response? Well, no suprise there: Nessie refused to admit that arguing the first Demjanjuk trial preceded the first Zündel trial was stupid and ignorant. 🤦♂️ [ Ay caramba! 🤪] This raises a question which is the logical corrollary of this stubborn denial: viz. if a person argues a 1986 trial preceded a 1985 trial and refuses to admit being in error, is this person capable of discussing ANY point of history intelligently and fairly? I suggest the logical answer is in the negative. 🙂 Consequently, if someone so divorced from reality ALSo insists the ’holocaust’ mass-gassing narrative has convincing evidence proving it to be accurate, (BUT without ever providing any and repeatedly referring primarily to vague and imprecise lists of non-credible witnesses), DOES this lead to any logical conclusions about the mndset of holocaust ’mass-gassing’ belief generally. Again I suggest the logical answer is in the negative. 🙂 But... it does make me wonder. 🤔 FINALLY: Nessie is now quibbling about the definition of cross-examination’: I have corrected Nessie’s dishonest/stupid strawman misrepresentation using text in grey. I think there are two fair and logical conclusions that can be made from this reply: 1.) that someone [in this case Nessie] would only need to resort to the logical fallacy of strawman misrepresentation IF they know that their own argument is weak or wrong. 2.) that IF — as many suspect — the Holocaust mass-gassing allegation was indeed a hoax, it definitely would have been exposed earlier, and perhaps never taken off at all, had witnesses been subjected to genuine cross-examination. A third logical conclusion is that only a person who knows they have no legitimate argument would resort to redefining a word’s definition. As that is what Nessie is also doing here, I suggest the only logical conclusion is that this person has no genuine argument and so is desperately resorting to transparent deception. www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cross-examination
|
|
Nessie
✍️
𝐕𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐬 𝗮𝗱𝗷𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿
Posts: 5,206
|
Post by Nessie on Jun 27, 2023 18:44:09 GMT
BACK ON TOPIC: LESSONS IN LOGIC: I have demonstrated using logic that the Zündel trial of January 1985 was the first time a Jewish person claiming to be a ’holocaust’ eye-witness was subjected to genuine CROSS-EXAMINATION. Notice that I have refrained from using the adjective ’ critical’ cross-examination in deference to Nessie’s childish and pedantic quibbling. It makes no difference to the point she* is avoiding, as logically and OBVIOUSLY if a court room examination of a witness isn’t critical then it isn’t genuine cross-examination. Nessie will no doubt find that simple logic hard to follow as we know both honesty and logical thinking are not her* strong-points. 😉 E.g. Nessie contested the 1985 trial of Zündel being the first time a jewish ’holocaust eye-witness’ was cross-examined by insinuating the 1986 show-trial of John Demjanjuk predated it. But as any normally intelligent person knows, 1985 is chrono logically BEFORE 1986. We will see if Nessie is able to understand now her error and to confess her* stupidity in asserting 1986 came before 1985? Or if she will try and dodge this also? 🤔🙂 [Notice I am reverting to using the correct pronoun for the avatar Nessie as I see no need to condescend to Nessie’s whims if she refuses to discuss simple points — such as this one — honestly, intelligently and fairly.] LESSONS IN LOGIC: If someone disputed the Zündel trial being the first time there had been genuine cross-examination of a jewish, holocaust-survivor eye-witness: a.) would they produce evidence of an earlier trial or trials as an example of where and when that had occurred previously to prove their point? b.) would they refer to a later trial and although accepting the chronology STILL insist numerous times that it was earlier? c.) none of the above, but still insist they knew better. QUESTION: logically speaking which of the above is the most logically correct response? Well, no suprise there: Nessie refused to admit that arguing the first Demjanjuk trial preceded the first Zündel trial was stupid and ignorant. 🤦♂️ [ Ay caramba! 🤪] This raises a question which is the logical corrollary of this stubborn denial: viz. if a person argues a 1986 trial preceded a 1985 trial and refuses to admit being in error, is this person capable of discussing ANY point of history intelligently and fairly? I suggest the logical answer is in the negative. 🙂 Here is my first response, where I did not dispute your claim Vrba was first, and I did not claim Demjanjuk was earlier, I merely mentioned Demjanjuk as another. Learn the difference; rodoh.info/post/14051/threadI reiterated that point here; rodoh.info/post/14055/threadI then asked you to evidence Vrba was the first, and, again, I did not claim Demjanjuk was earlier. I merely pointed out he was another. That is different. rodoh.info/post/14058/threadYou then tried to reverse the burden of proof and you failed to evidence Vrba was the earliest. You may well be correct, for reasons you are dodging, but since this thread is about logic, you need to learn the burden of proof. At all of the Nazi death camp trials, those Nazis admitted mass gassings happened. None who worked at an AR camp, Chelmno or was at one of the A-B kremas, denied they were used for mass gassing. When an accused is admitting to their crime and there are witnesses and other evidence to that crime, no court in the world would then demand that crime has to be proved, before the trail proceeds. The admission and evidence have proved the crime prior to the start of the trial. The death camp trials were about mitigation and responsibility for the gassings, not about whether the gassings happened. The witnesses in the Nazi death camp trials were cross-examined under the context of accused who had ADMITTED to mass gassings. That means they are not being cross-examined to establish if mass gassings had happened. That is different to the Zundel trial, where Zundel was claiming no gassings and so his defence has to cross-examine Vrba to establish if his claim of mass gassings was true or not. How can you not see that difference between trials where gassings were admitted and where they were not admitted? That affects what the defence can do during a cross-examination. The logical conclusion is that you do not understand how cross-examinations are affected by whether the accused has admitted to the crime or not. Mass gassings had been admitted at the death camp trials, so of course the defence are not going to start cross-examining the witnesses as to whether mass gassings happened or not. Zundel denied mass gassings, so his defence was able to challenge Vrba's claims.
Do you understand that? Can you acknowledge your lack of understanding that cross-examinations are different when the accused has admitted to the crime, to when they have denied the crime under investigation?
|
|