Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,772
|
Post by Nessie on Jun 2, 2022 12:25:34 GMT
Rectilinear IS NOT synonymous with "rectangular". How many times does it have to be defined for you. It is an irregular shaped figure with right angles. What can't you understand about that? The pits are all described as being longer than they are wide, which makes them rectangular. She described pits as rectilinear. If it has straight edges and is say, 25m by 50m, it is reasonable for it to be described as rectangular. etheses.bham.ac.uk/id/eprint/3531/1/SturdyColls12PhD.pdf"The feature is also visible in an area containing a rectangular area of ground disturbance" "Rectangular 25 (x) 19 (x) 0.47m โ depth of survey. Probable pit. Probably extends under the monument" There are numerous other references to rectangular pits in her report. You always forget that the memorial covers most of the site and the survey only covered a small area around it. So, there is ample space for the pits to be larger that geophysics found. No it is not, it is perfectly possible for the Nazis to have done that. Only you think a gas chambers would not work if it has hermetic sealing. Only you think large pits could not be dug. Only you think pyres using grates cannot work.
|
|
Turnagain
โ๏ธ
๐๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐๐
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on Jun 2, 2022 21:45:19 GMT
Nessie wrote:
Once again, Nessie declares that the rules of trigonometry don't apply to the holyhoax.
None of CS-C's pits are described as a rectangle. Then we have a "feature" that is ".47 meters deep". What is that "feature"? A building foundation? If the pits and "features" extend under the investigatory barrier why doesn't CS-C confirm that with GPR? Concrete is no barrier to GPR impulses so why didn't she show some short surveys that were perpendicular to a line extending from the pit? Oh, that's right, CS-C's "findings" are sacrosanct and not to be questioned. Well, at least to Nessie.
So, we're back to, "The ever so clever but eeevul Narzis knew how to get 'er done". No such thing as an impossibility with the eeevul Narzis around.
|
|
|
Post by been_there on Jun 2, 2022 21:55:20 GMT
Nessie wrote: Once again, Nessie declares that the rules of trigonometry don't apply to the holyhoax. ๐คฃ๐
๐ Seriously, Turnagain, do you really think this person is approaching the H-narrative in a sane way?
|
|
Turnagain
โ๏ธ
๐๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐๐
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on Jun 2, 2022 23:05:43 GMT
been-there wrote:
I'm not a clinical psychologist so I'm not qualified to say whether or not Nessie is sane. I was married to a psychologist but I don't think that is a qualification for diagnosing someone's sanity. I picked up some of the jargon, though.
Nessie seems to have a very rigid personality and is fanatical in his defense of the holyhoax. That fanaticism extends to denying reality such as the rules of trigonometry. That isn't an unusual phenomena. We currently have people who claim to be able to switch their gender at will in complete disregard of genetics. I don't think that either Nessie or the gender-benders can be judged insane on the basis of their fanatical beliefs. History is rife with the harmless (and not so harmless) looney-toonz and nutzoids where most people consider them to be ding-a-lings but not clinically delusional and insane.
I think that "disturbed" would be the harshest assessment I would put on Nessie. He's not like one fellow I knew who declared himself to be Jesus Christ and to prove it, took off his clothes and walked naked down the middle of main street in the town we lived.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,772
|
Post by Nessie on Jun 3, 2022 8:34:33 GMT
Nessie wrote: Once again, Nessie declares that the rules of trigonometry don't apply to the holyhoax. None of CS-C's pits are described as a rectangle. Then we have a "feature" that is ".47 meters deep". What is that "feature"? A building foundation? If the pits and "features" extend under the investigatory barrier why doesn't CS-C confirm that with GPR? Concrete is no barrier to GPR impulses so why didn't she show some short surveys that were perpendicular to a line extending from the pit? Oh, that's right, CS-C's "findings" are sacrosanct and not to be questioned. Well, at least to Nessie. I quoted from her report, where she said rectangular pits had been found. A feature is a building, a pit is a pit. GPR was how the pits that extend under the memorial were established. What the witnesses describe is physically possible. Just because you interpret their descriptions in a way to make their claims appear physically impossible, does not then make their claim physically impossible.
|
|
|
Post by ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐ด๐ป๐ธ on Jun 3, 2022 9:12:01 GMT
It is in response to off topic posts by been-there and Turnagain. Been-there has upped his abuse of me, in clear breach of forum rules, with nothing being done about it. I am not going to sit quietly by as he constantly questions my sanity. As I see it you are a moderator here, albeit your own board. Set an example, man up and ignore those; stick to the issues.
|
|
Turnagain
โ๏ธ
๐๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐๐
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on Jun 3, 2022 9:19:24 GMT
Nessie wrote: You believe in the holyhoax no matter what is "evidenced". For the umpteenth time, "rectilinear" isn't synonymous with "rectangular". The definition of a rectangle is very specific. For a definition and examples of "rectilinear" go here: www.splashlearn.com/math-vocabulary/geometry/rectilinear-figure CS-C shows a photo of one GPR scan. She claims to have used GPR to scan the entire area but shows only the one. Everything else is taken from resistivity studies. If you have found otherwise then post a link to her thesis and give the page number. What the alleged eyewitnesses said describes impossibilities. You make excuses for their claims and declare that the Germans could perform the mass murders due to their technical expertise. That isn't rational.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,772
|
Post by Nessie on Jun 3, 2022 12:05:59 GMT
Nessie wrote: You believe in the holyhoax no matter what is "evidenced". No, I believe because of the evidence. You believe despite the evidence. etheses.bham.ac.uk/id/eprint/3531/1/SturdyColls12PhD.pdfShe describes pits as rectangular. Page 474, G51-54, which are the pits to the side of the main memorial where the mass graves were located by the witnesses, are described as rectangular. Page 473, G44, which is in the Lazarette, is also described as rectangular and it extends under the smaller memorial Other features are described as rectilinear, as they have straight edges. Your suggestion she only describes irregular holes is wrong. Locations in her report of resistance survey and GPR imagery. Figure 4.9. Locations of the resistance survey area at Treblinka II (page 149) Figure 4.10. Locations of the GPR survey area at Treblinka II (page 150) Figure 4.31. Electrical imaging results for the survey of feature G1 (page 210) Figure 4.32. GPR time slices of feature G44 (shown in red) identified at Treblinka II in the area of the former Death Camp (page 213) Figure 4.33. Resistance survey results for Area D showing features G29 and G32 Figure 4.34. A GPR image plot of features G50-54 identified at Treblinka II in the area of the former Death Camp (page 214) Figure 4.35. A GPR profile showing one of the cut edges of feature G38, identified at Treblinka II in the area of the former Death Camp (page 218) You will of course declare that to be insufficient and you need to see more! You will dodge that you cannot evidence undisturbed ground where witnesses said the graves were located. According to you, if someone is poor at describing how they think something works, they are a liar and that thing never existed. The existence of something is only determined by how well a witness is able to describe how it works. That is not rational.
|
|
Turnagain
โ๏ธ
๐๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐๐
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on Jun 3, 2022 14:33:30 GMT
CS-C describes the "probable" pits as being rectangular but shows irregular shaped areas on her map. She also claims that the deepest pit is 2 meters. All of this from a GPR with an antenna that supposedly was good for 4 meters. She shows absolutely NO GPR scans of those "probable" pits. She then describes the "probable" pits as "possible/probable" graves. Where are the GPR scans showing those "probable" pits? She then describes G-55 as "irregular" with a depth of less than a meter to about 2 meters.
None of those items were found using resistivity. She shows multiple color plates depicting the resistivity studies but NOTHING, zip, zero, nada GPR plates for the "probable/possible" graves. Can you give one RATIONAL reason why I should just "take her word" for her claim that she found "probable/possible" graves using GPR? That's especially when she didn't return to Treblinka to resolve her questionable findings.
Of course you will accept anything she claims as the gospel truth. Disinterested observers, let alone myself, would call bullsh!t on her unsupported claims. She found mass graves that were 1-2 meters deep at most? On her map she shows irregular shaped areas and in her charts she claims the GPR scans show rectangles. How is that anomaly resolved? It's about as believable as her emoting over a few bones found in the Christian cemetery. You claim it's evidential proof of the holyhoax. I call it chicanery.
|
|
Turnagain
โ๏ธ
๐๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐๐
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on Jun 3, 2022 14:42:28 GMT
Nessie wrote:
"A" witness my shiny hiny. Witnesses who described the gas chambers ALL stated that they were hermetically sealed with three (3) of them known to have claimed that they were vacuum chambers. What happened to your convergence of testimony? Oh, that's right, it works when it confirms the holyhoax but becomes "just a mistake" when it doesn't. That's what isn't rational.
|
|
Turnagain
โ๏ธ
๐๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐๐
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on Jun 3, 2022 15:35:53 GMT
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,772
|
Post by Nessie on Jun 3, 2022 16:37:51 GMT
CS-C describes the "probable" pits as being rectangular but shows irregular shaped areas on her map. I do not know why that is. The image of G38, on page 218, Figure 4.35, is clearly rectangular and it is described as a pit. I presume the markings on the maps are just representative. Wrong, you need to start quoting her words, as you lie constantly about what she has said; "Five pits were located with the GPR (G50-G54) on the eastern side of the Death Camp (Figures 4.29 and 4.34). Although the GPR survey was unable to achieve a large enough depth range to determine the full extent of these pits, it is possible to say that they were all deeper than four metres and that they were all of considerable size in plan (G50 was visible to an extent of 34m x 12m, G51-19m x 12m, G52 โ 22m x c.15m, G53 โ c.18m x 7m and G54 was visible to 20.8m x c. 14m)." Not that you are an honest, unbiased, knowledgeable assessor of GPR and other geophysical surveys. As usual, the evidence is not what you want to hear, so you think up excuses to disbelieve it, since you have not evidence that the ground was largely undisturbed.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,772
|
Post by Nessie on Jun 3, 2022 16:40:56 GMT
Lol, you found her quote that contradicts your claim about GPR depth, but you do not correct your earlier claim. How dishonest of you! She goes into detail about the equipment used and the topography of the camp. Pits that are at least 4m deep, are deep enough to show that the Nazis were digging lots of large pits at TII, which is consistent with and corroborates witness claims about mass graves.
|
|
Turnagain
โ๏ธ
๐๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐๐
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on Jun 3, 2022 19:06:28 GMT
Nessie wrote: CS-C's chart shows NO other method besides the GPR to locate the pits. GPR was the only method used to locate G-50 -G-54 and she wrote that the pits were 1-2 meters deep. That's what is written in her charts. She then goes on to say it was "possible to say that they were all deeper than four metres". It's possible for her to say anything she likes but how did she determine that the pits were all deeper than 4 meters? A divining rod? The GPR didn't show it and she didn't use any other method to measure the depth of the pits. She claimed to use GPR "slices" that showed strong and weak reflections. What the hell does that mean? GPR signals reflect off of underground formations. It doesn't present "strong" and "weak" reflections. She showed only one (1) actual profile with the others not even resembling a GPR profile. Is she just inept, hiding something or something else? What she claims in one part of her thesis is contradicted in a different part. The pits are shown to be irregular on her map. In her charts she states that they are rectangular. She then claims that GPR shows "strong" and "weak" reflections. Has she confused GPR and resistivity?
Again, can you give me a RATIONAL reason for why I should believe such a mish-mash of contradictions?
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,772
|
Post by Nessie on Jun 4, 2022 14:14:31 GMT
Nessie wrote: CS-C's chart shows NO other method besides the GPR to locate the pits. She used electrical resistance, a "A twenty-probe, Wenner array", which is "capable of recording to a maximum depth of 3m". Figure 4.9 on page 149 shows that the electrical resistance survey area was larger than the GPR survey area, as shown on the next page. You are lying. I have shown you how G50-54 were covered by electrical resistance on page 149 and her descriptions on page 470 are; G50 0.2 to depth of survey G51 1m-2m G52 1m to depth of survey G53 1m-2m G54 1.5m to depth of survey You need to stop lying. As for the GPR "Subsequently, a 400 MHz antenna was selected for use in this study, permitting survey to a maximum depth of 5m dependent upon the underlying geology" so, the pits that were to the depth of the survey have gone beyond what the GPR can find, which in that area of ground, is 4m. You don't know enough about the subject to be able to credibly reject her findings. I have already shown you where you have lied about what she reported. It would help if started to be more honest about what you have read.
|
|