Turnagain
โ๏ธ
๐๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐๐
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on Sept 19, 2022 10:34:47 GMT
Indeed, this is off topic from the Transport thread. It is a fact that Nessie can't name a single eyewitness to the alleged homicidal events that supposedly took place at Treblinka that doesn't lie. NONE! Zip, zero, nada.
Nessie argues that their lies don't matter since they all agree that the gas chambers worked (somehow), the giant graves were dug (somehow), the exhumations were carried out with a clamshell (somehow), the cremations occurred (somehow) and the cremains were reburied although nobody has ever presented a laboratory tested sample of such cremains.
Nessie then claims that the eeevul Narzis COULDA' built gas chambers, they COULDA' dug large pits, they COULDA' exhumed the bodies, they COULDA' cremated the cadavers and they COULDA' reburied the cremains in the graves. Nessie then presents his "evidence" that the Germans did in fact accomplish those feats of engineering. He has some tile shards that are "evidence" of the gas chamber. He has claims of "probable" graves from Colls but no GPR profiles to back up those claims. He has a tiny handful of untested bone shards found on the surface of Treblinka that represent the thousands of tons of supposed cremains and some shadowy outlines of buildings from a 1944 aerial photo that he claims delineates the murder facilities of the extermination camp Treblinka II.
IOW, Nessie has no witnesses who didn't lie about the homicidal events and no unequivocal evidence that the Germans "coulda" performed the murderous feats attributed to them by the lying witnesses. The witnesses DID lie and those lies DO matter.
|
|
Nessie
๐ฆ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ (Nessies forum)
Posts: 4,895
|
Post by Nessie on Sept 19, 2022 11:21:08 GMT
Prove they lied, rather than they made mistakes or used emotive, figurative descriptions that were not meant to be taken literally.
Prove the Nazis, whose use of language was far more matter of fact and far less emotive than the Jewish testimony, all lied.
Before you go ahead with proving they lied, do you even know how to do that? Do you know what is required to prove a witness lied?
|
|
Turnagain
โ๏ธ
๐๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐๐
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on Sept 19, 2022 15:16:04 GMT
So give me the name of an eyewitness who gives a relatively truthful account of the alleged homicidal events that are claimed to have occurred at Treblinka II. Then explain why you consider your evidence to be proof that Treblinka II was an extermination camp.
|
|
Nessie
๐ฆ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ (Nessies forum)
Posts: 4,895
|
Post by Nessie on Sept 19, 2022 15:44:43 GMT
So give me the name of an eyewitness who gives a relatively truthful account of the alleged homicidal events that are claimed to have occurred at Treblinka II. Then explain why you consider your evidence to be proof that Treblinka II was an extermination camp. How many times do you need me to do the same thing, as you dodge answering my questions?
How many times have I explained to you why I consider Wiernik to be generally truthful and his use of obvious emotive and figurative descriptives?
How many times will you dodge his description of the gas chambers, that does not defy physical possibility?
How many times do I need to point out that your disbelief is not a credible or reliable method for determining truthfulness?
How many times do I need to point out that you have no evidence from any other source to contradict what the witnesses said happened?
Your refusal to learn about evidencing, proof, how witnesses behave and the difference between credibility and truthfulness, makes having the same conversation with you for the umpteenth time a bit pointless.
|
|
Turnagain
โ๏ธ
๐๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐๐
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on Sept 19, 2022 17:37:28 GMT
So give me the name of an eyewitness who gives a relatively truthful account of the alleged homicidal events that are claimed to have occurred at Treblinka II. Then explain why you consider your evidence to be proof that Treblinka II was an extermination camp. How many times do you need me to do the same thing, as you dodge answering my questions?
How many times have I explained to you why I consider Wiernik to be generally truthful and his use of obvious emotive and figurative descriptives?
How many times will you dodge his description of the gas chambers, that does not defy physical possibility?
How many times do I need to point out that your disbelief is not a credible or reliable method for determining truthfulness?
How many times do I need to point out that you have no evidence from any other source to contradict what the witnesses said happened?
Your refusal to learn about evidencing, proof, how witnesses behave and the difference between credibility and truthfulness, makes having the same conversation with you for the umpteenth time a bit pointless.
IOW, Nessie considers a lying witness to be irrelevant as long as he can pick out a snippet or two that supports his fanatical belief in the holyhoax. Nessie's claim to being a top-notch investigator doesn't fit the profile of any cops of my acquaintance. Cops tend to be suspicious of all statements and will refer back to them with intentional mistakes to see if a witness tells the same story. Cops very seldom give anyone the benefit of the doubt let alone excuse outright lies with, "he coulda' been exaggerating". Nessie's claim that cops are generous, believe in the general goodness of the public and are willing to accept any story told by a witness to excuse their peccadillos is a giant pile of horse frocky.
|
|
Nessie
๐ฆ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ (Nessies forum)
Posts: 4,895
|
Post by Nessie on Sept 19, 2022 19:12:25 GMT
How many times do you need me to do the same thing, as you dodge answering my questions?
How many times have I explained to you why I consider Wiernik to be generally truthful and his use of obvious emotive and figurative descriptives?
How many times will you dodge his description of the gas chambers, that does not defy physical possibility?
How many times do I need to point out that your disbelief is not a credible or reliable method for determining truthfulness?
How many times do I need to point out that you have no evidence from any other source to contradict what the witnesses said happened?
Your refusal to learn about evidencing, proof, how witnesses behave and the difference between credibility and truthfulness, makes having the same conversation with you for the umpteenth time a bit pointless.
IOW, Nessie considers a lying witness to be irrelevant as long as he can pick out a snippet or two that supports his fanatical belief in the holyhoax. Strawman. You are dodging all of my questions because answering them would mean you admitting I am right and you do not have a credible method for determining truthfulness. If a witness states something that appears mistaken, they can be reinterviewed and a clarification obtained. Most cops can tell exaggeration from lies. They also know they need evidence to prove lies. The reason why I believe Wiernik is primarily because his main claims are corroborated by multiple sources of other evidence. I can also see he is prone to figurative language, as are all the Jewish witnesses. You have still not explained how your opinion is the most reliable method for determining if a witness lied, and not evidence. |
|
Turnagain
โ๏ธ
๐๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐๐
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on Sept 19, 2022 20:53:38 GMT
Nessie wrote: The reason you believe Wiernik is because there "coulda'" been a gas chamber, there "coulda'" been some graves, there "coulda'" been some exhumations, there "coulda'" been some cremations and there "coulda'" been some reburials. The fact that Wiernik lied about every single aspect of those claims is irrelevant to Nessie's fanatical belief in the holyhoax. Nessie's so-called "evidence" is essentially meaningless. Were there some tile shards? Yes there were but could have equally come from a shower or a bathroom since Wiernik is a liar. Were there pits at Treblinka? Yes there were but all camps had garbage pits, just as the Soviets found. Colls' "probable graves" could have been figments of her imagination given no GPR profiles. Of course Nessie simply ignores the electric masturbation machine, the lethal jungle gym, the flammable blood and the myriad of other bizarre fantasies as told by the alleged eyewitnesses. It isn't difficult to deduce that someone is lying when they recount a tale of how a little boy rode his tricycle to the moon. Neither is it difficult to discern when someone describes events that defy physical laws, that they're lying.
For example: Over the years I've heard many tales of "triple digit" trucks, eg. trucks that could travel over 100 mph. It takes a significant amount of power and certain gear arrangements in both the transmission(s) and the final drives to achieve that speed. When questioned about the specific power and gear arrangements, most of the drivers bragging about the triple digit trucks knew nothing about what is required for a truck to achieve such speeds. IOW, they lied. Nessie would say that they just "exaggerated" or "used emotive language" but the fact remains that they lied. The truck didn't go 100 mph and the unaided M&H dragline didn't dig a 12X30X50 meter pit.
|
|
nazgul
๐ต๏ธ
๐ฐ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐ฒ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ (Reichshaupamptgeheimepolizei)
Posts: 1,220 
|
Post by nazgul on Sept 19, 2022 22:02:22 GMT
Ha ha ha we are back to mass graves and pits.
|
|
Turnagain
โ๏ธ
๐๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐๐
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on Sept 19, 2022 22:13:19 GMT
I don't think that Nessie has much interest in discussing the veracity of his so-called eyewitnesses. They are just background noise for his fantasies for how the holyhoax occurred.
|
|
nazgul
๐ต๏ธ
๐ฐ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐ฒ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ (Reichshaupamptgeheimepolizei)
Posts: 1,220
|
Post by nazgul on Sept 19, 2022 22:37:41 GMT
I don't think that Nessie has much interest in discussing the veracity of his so-called eyewitnesses. They are just background noise for his fantasies for how the holyhoax occurred. I think it is quite clear when he told us that the burning blood issue was us not understanding the quote that he has issues with credibility. He is not here to discuss but to proselytize; the only thing missing is his bike, white shirt and the fact he is Scottish and not from Salt Lake City. |
|
Turnagain
โ๏ธ
๐๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐๐
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on Sept 20, 2022 0:06:24 GMT
Indeed, I'm beginning to doubt his persona as the kindly old police investigator who forgives the lies of his witnesses with his tut-tutting and formulates for his witnesses such excuses as the witness was just "exaggerating" a wee bit.
|
|
Nessie
๐ฆ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ (Nessies forum)
Posts: 4,895
|
Post by Nessie on Sept 20, 2022 7:58:20 GMT
Nessie wrote: The reason you believe Wiernik is because there "coulda'" been a gas chamber, there "coulda'" been some graves, there "coulda'" been some exhumations, there "coulda'" been some cremations and there "coulda'" been some reburials. The fact that Wiernik lied about every single aspect of those claims is irrelevant to Nessie's fanatical belief in the holyhoax. Yet again, you are dishonestly misrepresenting my beliefs and the evidence. There are the physical remains of a building matching descriptions of the gas chambers where witnesses said the gas chambers was located. There is forensic and archaeological evidence of large areas of disturbed ground containing cremated remains. All the Nazis agree with Wiernik. There is no "coulda" about it, it is evidenced to have happened. Those sentences prove your ignorance about the evidence and what evidence is and how investigations are normally conducted. You dumb down and misrepresent what has been found and mix rumour and hearsay in with eyewitness evidence as if it is the same thing. You do not understand that evidence cannot be taken in isolation and has to be pieced together logically with the other evidence. If they knew nothing about the requirements, how do you know they lied, when making a mistake based on their ignorance is a rational explanation? There is no set of circumstances that means a boy can cycle a bike to the moon. It is entirely possible for the Nazis to have built gas chambers, dug large pits and cremated on pyres using rails. Your analogy is false. Just because you cannot believe what happened, based on the way the witnesses described what they saw, where they used obvious figurative language not be taken literally, does not therefore mean they all lied. You are using the logical fallacy of argument from incredulity. Your inability to recognise logically flawed arguments is why you have fallen for the hoax. To prove the witnesses lied, you need other witnesses who were there and who say something different. Or archaeological examinations of the site which prove minimal ground disturbances, no traces of cremated remains and no trace of a building as described. |
|
Nessie
๐ฆ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ (Nessies forum)
Posts: 4,895
|
Post by Nessie on Sept 20, 2022 8:04:13 GMT
I don't think that Nessie has much interest in discussing the veracity of his so-called eyewitnesses. They are just background noise for his fantasies for how the holyhoax occurred. I have discussed the veracity of the witnesses in numerous posts.
You are very reluctant to discuss your belief that because you do not believe the witnesses, therefore they lied, therefore no mass gassings happened, is a logical fallacy.
"Concluding that because you can't or refuse to believe something, it must not be true, improbable, or the argument must be flawed."
"The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone concludes that since they canโt believe something is true, then it must be false..."
"personal incredulity
Because you found something difficult to understand, or are unaware of how it works, you made out like it's probably not true."
"The argument from incredulity
Is a logical fallacy where someone concludes that since they canโt believe that a certain concept is true, then it must be false and vice versa.
Its 2 basic forms:
โI canโt imagine how X can be true; therefore, X must be false.โ
โI canโt imagine how X can be false; therefore, X must be true.โ"
You use a logically flawed argument to conclude there were no gassings. You do not have any evidence.
|
|
Nessie
๐ฆ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ (Nessies forum)
Posts: 4,895
|
Post by Nessie on Sept 20, 2022 8:08:55 GMT
Indeed, I'm beginning to doubt his persona as the kindly old police investigator who forgives the lies of his witnesses with his tut-tutting and formulates for his witnesses such excuses as the witness was just "exaggerating" a wee bit. When an eyewitness claims thousands were packed into a gas chambers, when that chamber could not have fitted so many people, that eyewitness is exaggerating, not lying. All police know about and are trained to recognise the normal flaws with people's memory and that many people speak figuratively and should not be taken literally.
The police also understand that credibility and truthfulness are not the same. You think that is a witness is not credible, therefore they lied, which is wrong.
|
|
Turnagain
โ๏ธ
๐๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐๐
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on Sept 20, 2022 9:10:52 GMT
Nessie wrote:
Moron! The idiot drivers claimed that the truck could exceed 100 mph loaded on level ground was due to the fact that he WAS ignorant of the gearing and power requirements to produce such speeds.
Your lame excuses, your "what ifs" and "exaggerations" are lies that don't fly. Sell it down the street, Nessie.
If a witness claims to have witnessed not only an impossibility but a whole series of physical impossibilities then it's reasonable to assume that the witness is lying. That isn't "Concluding that because you can't or refuse to believe something, it must not be true...". You interposing your litany of excuses into the witnesses' statements doesn't obviate the conclusion that the witness lied. Your understanding of an argument from incredulity is as flawed as the lies of the witnesses you seek to defend.
Then the witness claims that the gas chamber was hermetically sealed then the witness is lying. Then the witness claims that the mass graves were beyond the capabilities of the machine used to dig them. Then the witness states that the volume of the graves was insufficient to contain ~725,000 cadavers. Then the witness describes an impossible means of exhuming and cremating those bodies. Ever hear of the old saying, "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me"? One clanger can be termed an exaggeration. An entire litany of lies, not so much.
|
|
