Nessie wrote: The M&H was mobile, so it could dig a pit any length or width. Its boom only restricts depth.(sigh) Without auxiliary equipment the M&H dragline could dig a pit that contained 32 cubic meters of ex per meter of excavation for as long as you wanted to dig. Adding the fluff, that creates about 36 cubic meters of actual ex.
The depth of the excavation is limited by the amount of cable on the spool and the width of the excavation. Theoretically the excavation could be one foot wide and about 100 meters deep. Under no circumstances could the M&H dig a pit of more than 32 cubic meters of ex per meter of excavation without auxiliary equipment to haul the ex away from the excavation.
I can't understand why such simple concepts are so incomprehensible to Nessie. This isn't differential calculus, just some very simple trigonometric and arithmetic functions.
I think you can. 🙂
There is a fairly obvious explanation for why Nessie can't understand such simple concepts and why she finds them so incomprehensible.
You keep referring to him as a her. Are we dealing with a female here or not? No pussy footing around this time.
Again a worrying inability to comprehend and repeat accurately extremely simple statements. 🙁
1. I did NOT “suggest” you were “being moronic and insane...” Read it again. I have AGAIN highlighted key words to help you correctly understand, just as I did when I reposted after you dodged the point by censoring my reply. How do you explain this inability to understand and correctly respond to extremely simple statements?
Your constant use of the terms moronic, idiotic and other words that suggest mental health and intelligence issues, whether you use those terms to describe the person, or the argument they are making, is part of your constant tactic of abusing your opponent, whether overtly or slyly.
We all get that you think I am an idiot with mental health problems. You do not need to reassert that in every one of your replies to me and comments about my posts. By doing so, you are abusing and bullying, which is against forum rules. Stop it, as forum rules will be followed in this section of the forum and your posts will likely continue to be moved.
2. We are not now discussing whether a “witness is a reliable method for determining physical possibility”.
We are discussing whether it is insane and moronic logic to state that unless we can prove who perpetrated a crime, we can not accept EVIDENCE proving it was not those who were FALSELY convicted and unfairly punished. It is a comparison of logic, NOT of a specific type of crime. How do you explain your inability to comprehend this very simple point of comparison of logic?
What you present as evidence, is more often than not opinion and argument from incredulity.
3. Finally, it is NOT ’abuse’ to point out to someone that they have a clear impairment of perception of reality.
Just as if someone who repeatedly and stubbornly insists that strawberries, cherries, raspberries and the leaves that surround them are various shades of brown, it would NOT be abuse” to inform them that they are red and green colour-blind. Do you understand that comparison?
It is abuse to constantly repeat the same derogatory comments time and time and time again. It is abuse to constantly suggest that another has mental health and intelligence issues.
This thread is about what is evidence. Your opinion that another has mental health and intelligence issues and their arguments suggest the same, is repeated so often, that it is boring and tiresome. It will not be tolerated here.
You have a number of times boasted about yourself, your fake credentials and your fake experience while denigrating revisionists and members of this board. Now you whine that you're being abused, even in this most gentle fashion...
That is not saying there is no need for further investigation.
Reversing the burden of proof, is the argument that under certain circumstances, a party does not need to evidence what happened, the burden being on the other party to produce the evidence. It is arguing that deniers do not need to evidence what happened, it is up to historians to evidence what happened.
yesterday at 10:02am Nessie said: Wrong way round. ...you are using logical fallacies. I was... [blah, blah, blah] ...the Nazis can dig mass graves and claiming a mass grave was dug is not a claim of the physically impossible... [more nonsense blah, blah, blah] ...your argument from incredulity, which,... [blah, blah, blah]
Oh boy! Another quite staggeringly moronic reply! 🙄 Nobody has ever argued that the Nazties couldn’t dig a mass grave. 🤦♂️ Nor that a grave containing more than ten bodies (a ”mass gave”) was not dug at T2. None of this goes into this person’s understanding, presumably because they are not interested in understanding ANYTHING that refutes their racist, anti-German, hate-based delusional H belief-system.
You are clearly struggling to follow the debate. Turnagain is one of many deniers, you are included, who uses the argument from incredulity, claiming that mass graves are a physical impossibility, as described, therefore the witness claims are too unbelievable to accept, therefore the witnesses all lied, thereforeno mass graves containing hundreds of thousands of bodies. I have broken that stupidly illogical argument down and you have reacted to one part of that refutation, failing to understand that it is only part of the whole refutation.
1. Step one of the refutation is to point out that the witnesses are not making a physically impossible claim, since, as you accept, the Nazis could dig mass graves to approximately the size described.
2. Step two of the refutation is to point out that just because a witness describes something that is possible, such as digging a large pit, in a way that makes it appear impossible, does not mean the witness is making a claim that is impossible.
3. Step three of the refutation is to point out that the illogical argument of personal incredulity is being used to try and dismiss the witness claims as lies.
Just because you do not believe the witness descriptions, does not therefore mean the witnesses are lying and there are no huge mass graves containing hundreds of thousands of bodies. Your personal incredulity about the witness descriptions, is not a good enough reason to dismiss the witness evidence. The witness claims about huge pits being dug to burying hundreds of thousands of bodies is corroborated by archaeological, forensic, photographic and circumstantial evidence. Evidence, not argument is how to prove if something happened or not.
You lack the intelligence to understand what I have said, and since you only join in the debate to abuse, it is best you withdraw and go back to copy and pasting other people's words elsewhere in the forum. Being anti-Nazi, does not mean I am racist or anti-German. You clearly lack the understanding to grasp that simple fact.
Yet another literally moronic reply, this time one that is quite insanely self-contradictory. I will explain why it is both. Let us see if Nessie has the intelligence and necessary sanity to respond directly to the logical points made without censorship or whining about bullying, or childishly resorting to illogical tu quoque. ___________
1a. Yes, the witnesses definitely WERE“making a physically impossible claim”. So that is comprehension FAIL 1. Turnagain has patiently explained why repeatedly. This person is just incapable of understanding his factual, physics-based explanations. Which is why she makes ridiculous and moronic strawman replies that reply to the unmade claim that the Nazties were incapable of digging mass-graves large enough to fit over 700,000 human corpses.
1b. I do not “accept, the Nazis could dig mass graves to approximately the size described” at T2 with the equipment claimed, in the space claimed. So this is not a refutation of anything I have written or argued. Nessie leaves that essential context out. And this has been explained numerous times. Yet she can not understand it. Why is that, if this person is not retarded or has some sort of psychotic mental problem? So that is comprehension FAIL 2.
2. Yes, if “a witness describes something that is possible in a way that makes it appear impossible, does not mean the witness is making a claim that is impossible”. Of course it does. 🤦♂️ The stupidity of this obvious dismissal of simple logic is staggering. E.g. it ispossible for humans to travel to the moon. BUT if a person claims they saw a child ride a bicycle to the moon, that would be impossible in numerous particulars. And would therefore be an example of a “witness is making a claim that is impossible”. No doubt Nessie won’t understand this example of simple logic. Which I argue demonstrates both a comprehension deficit and some sort of psychotic mental imparment.
3. The misuse and incomprehension of the logical fallacy of ’argument from incredulity’ as well as their incomprehension of other logical fallacies — such as the extremely basic ad hominem fallacy — is further evidence of the two intelligence and sanity deficits previously asserted.
Last Edit: Jul 16, 2022 14:41:05 GMT by been_there
It would be easy for been-there to respond to issues I raise, without adding in the constant claims of psychosis, mental impairment, stupidity etc. He has also been told I am a he, not a she. He choses not to, purely because he is a bully who tries to manipulate people into his way of thinking, by trying to undermine them. That attitude is not tolerated in this section of the forum, indeed, it is an attitude that would result in some form of censorship on pretty much any and all forums.
From the USHMM: Geez, they got their information from "a book"? Well, if it came from a book then I suppose that it must be true.
Apparently the Nazis normally kept their ghetto records on USB sticks, or floppy discs, or even hard drives. Oh, hold on a moment, they had not been invented in the 1940s, and back then records were often bound into books, or the archive bound relevant records together. You are so ignorant!
Obviously the point was that most reputable historians are expected to supply as a verifiable, credible reference something a bit more specific than ”a book”. 🤦♂️
I suggest this is further proof we are dealing with an imbecile.
Please send comments or concerns to my e-mail with the word " RODOH " in the subjectline ([email protected])