Gibson
โ๏ธ
Patrician
Posts: 240
|
Post by Gibson on Feb 11, 2023 20:45:35 GMT
Too general. Disagreement is a obviously problem if it is to a degree that suggests the two accounts cannot be factual and cannot be describing physical reality. Two contradictory or mutually exclusive statements cannot both be true and there is a limit to the extent contradictions can be explained by sensory limitations. An example of a reasonable contradiction would if one witness described a getaway car as gray and another described it as black. Especially if it was at night and they didn't get a great look, that wouldn't necessarily be a major contradiction. But if they both described the make and model and gave elaborate descriptions about the interior and exterior of the car, major contradictions in that case WOULD be a problem because the tolerance for what would be a reasonable contradiction becomes narrower the greater the level of knowledge claimed. Agreement can also be a problem. Most notably it is a problem if there is "agreement" on something that known to be false. This shows dependence, not corroboration. For example, why did multiple witnesses quote the 4 million death toll at Auschwitz? They could not have independently learned of this fact for the simple reason that it is false and the number originated from the Soviets after the war. In this case it is actually a problem that the witness is saying something that "agrees" (falsely) with Soviet postwar propaganda because it proves that they were aware of this material and it proves without question that at least some of their "testimony" is based on that material. Once you open that door, your side is in trouble. Another example I've given you before is that multiple accounts from multiple camps claim they gave people towels and soap on their way into the gas chamber. Is this multiple people describing observed physical reality or is this a legend that people are repeating? Almost certainly the latter, in which case the inclusion of "towels and soap" lessens the quality of a testimony because it suggests the testimony is derivative. Nothing I have said would preclude the possibility of a truthful witness. If a statement is free of internal contradictions and does not contradict known facts or physical reality and the person was in a position to know, then it is potentially true. If it cannot be confirmed by hard evidence but is corroborated by other statements made independently then it is probably fairly reliable. Without hard evidence to confirm it, there will more uncertainty. The problem with holocaust witnesses is that they show a great deal of dependence yet also a great deal of contradictions which is what you'd expect if people were repeating legends and propaganda. What you fail to take into account is that what you call dependence, is likely due to them seeing the same thing and you cannot evidence it is one witness from whom all other witnesses get their information. The contradictions you speak of, are caused by you failing to differentiate between hearsay and eyewitness evidence.
The Nazis and the Jews who worked at the AR camps and inside the A-B Kremas were from different countries, different backgrounds and they are not dependent on a particular source of information, they are independent. Those who are eyewitnesses to the actual gassings do not contradict each other. Instead, they differ on certain details, but that is to be expected, when they have not colluded.
Their evidence is also corroborated by evidence that is independent of them, such as documents recording mass transports and the circumstances of AR and the selection process. That makes the evidence for gassings overwhelming and compelling. It is proved.
Multiple witnesses "saw" 4 million killed at Auschwitz? Imbecile.
|
|
Gibson
โ๏ธ
Patrician
Posts: 240
|
Post by Gibson on Feb 11, 2023 20:51:46 GMT
Why do you think that seizure of personal effects is proof the people were killed? That argument doesn't work since a similar process is described at non-extermination camps. Here is how Rassinier describes checking into Buchenwald. By your logic, he was murdered along with everyone else there. Moreover, I might add that this is not really so different from what happens today when you get sent to prison, the main difference being that legally the prison is supposed to return your personal items upon your release (although theft does occur). That description for Buchenwald does not include seizing underwear, spectacles, walking sticks and gold from teeth. Everything was stolen from those who went to the AR camps. You are ignoring that is not consistent with resettlement. The Nazis ordered the Jews to take property with them, so they would not have to spend money on them. If they were being resettled, they would not have everything taken off them part of the way through the journey. Reread the part I quoted. He says "trousers" AND "shorts." The shorts here refers to underwear. The original French is "le caleรงon," which generally refers to underwear. In prison, it's common for underwear and shoes to be taken and exchanged for standard issue clothing. Rassinier also explicitly mentions that they took canes and crutches as well.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,689
|
Post by Nessie on Feb 12, 2023 10:12:16 GMT
What you fail to take into account is that what you call dependence, is likely due to them seeing the same thing and you cannot evidence it is one witness from whom all other witnesses get their information. The contradictions you speak of, are caused by you failing to differentiate between hearsay and eyewitness evidence.
The Nazis and the Jews who worked at the AR camps and inside the A-B Kremas were from different countries, different backgrounds and they are not dependent on a particular source of information, they are independent. Those who are eyewitnesses to the actual gassings do not contradict each other. Instead, they differ on certain details, but that is to be expected, when they have not colluded.
Their evidence is also corroborated by evidence that is independent of them, such as documents recording mass transports and the circumstances of AR and the selection process. That makes the evidence for gassings overwhelming and compelling. It is proved.
Multiple witnesses "saw" 4 million killed at Auschwitz? Imbecile.
You have been told this before, but still you do not understand. You are suggesting that I said multiple witnesses saw with their own eyes 4 million people being killed at A-B. You then call me an imbecile for that.
That is called the strawman fallacy. The strawman is you making up the false claim that I had said witnesses saw 4 million die. I have never said that. You lied. You lied so you could try and dismiss what I had said as imbecilic. What I did saw was that everyone who worked inside the Kremas said the same thing, with only minor detail differences. You cannot argue against that, so you lied.
Yet again you prove denier are reliant on illogical arguments, because they have no evidence to back up their claims.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,689
|
Post by Nessie on Feb 12, 2023 10:17:33 GMT
That description for Buchenwald does not include seizing underwear, spectacles, walking sticks and gold from teeth. Everything was stolen from those who went to the AR camps. You are ignoring that is not consistent with resettlement. The Nazis ordered the Jews to take property with them, so they would not have to spend money on them. If they were being resettled, they would not have everything taken off them part of the way through the journey. Reread the part I quoted. He says "trousers" AND "shorts." The shorts here refers to underwear. The original French is "le caleรงon," which generally refers to underwear. In prison, it's common for underwear and shoes to be taken and exchanged for standard issue clothing. Rassinier also explicitly mentions that they took canes and crutches as well. It is good that after your strawman post, you post something with evidence to back up your argument. Shame you cannot link to what Rassinier said, but it is a start. Next time, link to your source.
How do you know shorts does not refer to shorts, in particular children's clothing? You make a good argument with the claim about taking walking aids from the disabled, but the claim needs checking for context and what happened next.
You still cannot get round the problem that, if the AR camps were transit points, it would make more sense for the Jews to keep the property they were travelling with, to go to their destination, than to lose all of it part way through the journey, which they would then have to complete naked. Ending up naked inside the camp is consistent with gassings, which is circumstantial evidence to corroborate all the witness who said that gassings took place.
|
|
Gibson
โ๏ธ
Patrician
Posts: 240
|
Post by Gibson on Feb 12, 2023 17:05:34 GMT
Multiple witnesses "saw" 4 million killed at Auschwitz? Imbecile.
You have been told this before, but still you do not understand. You are suggesting that I said multiple witnesses saw with their own eyes 4 million people being killed at A-B. You then call me an imbecile for that.
That is called the strawman fallacy. The strawman is you making up the false claim that I had said witnesses saw 4 million die. I have never said that. You lied. You lied so you could try and dismiss what I had said as imbecilic. What I did saw was that everyone who worked inside the Kremas said the same thing, with only minor detail differences. You cannot argue against that, so you lied.
Yet again you prove denier are reliant on illogical arguments, because they have no evidence to back up their claims.
Do you accurately and objectively summarize revisionist arguments? No, you don't. Notice that in this entire thread I have, until now, refrained from saying anything unkind about your intelligence. It is to my great credit that I lasted until page 23. If you still can't understand why it is a problem to have a testimony that repeats the Soviet 4 million number (or a tired Dr. Mengele story or the towels and soap story or a huge flames coming out of the chimney day and night story or ...), then you either have a cognitive deficiency or you are just being biased and stubborn. You say that I don't understand the difference between the "real" testimony and the bad testimony, but the problem there is that if you insist on a more restrictive subset of testimonies then you barely have any. Please list the "real" witnesses for Belzec.
|
|
Gibson
โ๏ธ
Patrician
Posts: 240
|
Post by Gibson on Feb 12, 2023 17:13:53 GMT
Reread the part I quoted. He says "trousers" AND "shorts." The shorts here refers to underwear. The original French is "le caleรงon," which generally refers to underwear. In prison, it's common for underwear and shoes to be taken and exchanged for standard issue clothing. Rassinier also explicitly mentions that they took canes and crutches as well. It is good that after your strawman post, you post something with evidence to back up your argument. Shame you cannot link to what Rassinier said, but it is a start. Next time, link to your source.
How do you know shorts does not refer to shorts, in particular children's clothing? You make a good argument with the claim about taking walking aids from the disabled, but the claim needs checking for context and what happened next.
You still cannot get round the problem that, if the AR camps were transit points, it would make more sense for the Jews to keep the property they were travelling with, to go to their destination, than to lose all of it part way through the journey, which they would then have to complete naked. Ending up naked inside the camp is consistent with gassings, which is circumstantial evidence to corroborate all the witness who said that gassings took place.
Here you go. www.ihr.org/books/rassinier/debunking1-2.htmlGo back to the OP and reread point #2. Saying that a pile of shoes is proof of murder is not a sound argument. It is at best a very circumstantial argument that you wouldn't even be making if you had something better. And the fact that we find identical descriptions of personal effects being confiscated in the non-extermination camps and identical propaganda with the piles of shoes and so forth is further reason not to support this leap you are trying to make.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,689
|
Post by Nessie on Feb 12, 2023 19:58:34 GMT
You have been told this before, but still you do not understand. You are suggesting that I said multiple witnesses saw with their own eyes 4 million people being killed at A-B. You then call me an imbecile for that.
That is called the strawman fallacy. The strawman is you making up the false claim that I had said witnesses saw 4 million die. I have never said that. You lied. You lied so you could try and dismiss what I had said as imbecilic. What I did saw was that everyone who worked inside the Kremas said the same thing, with only minor detail differences. You cannot argue against that, so you lied.
Yet again you prove denier are reliant on illogical arguments, because they have no evidence to back up their claims.
Do you accurately and objectively summarize revisionist arguments? No, you don't. So you claim, without providing any evidence. You are trying to deflect from your strawman claim. Link to me stating that there is no problem with false claims, such as the 4 million, human soap etc. You cannot, because I have never said that. Of course false testimony is a problem. No, you don't understand the difference between hearsay and eyewitness testimony. You don't understand why hearsay is less accurate than eyewitness evidence, which is why eyewitness testimony takes precedence over hearsay. The Das Prussian list of eyewitnesses is here www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=32920I do not know a huge amount about Belzec, but he lists the eyewintesses as "E1) Belzec Nazis : 1) Josef Oberhauser 1963 - Munich statement Adjutant to Wirth - Dec 41 14.12.62 208 AR-Z 252/59 vol 9 p1681ff 1948 - Magdeburg - (euthanasia) 15.11.71- Hoffmann Trial 8 ks 1/70 vol 3 p881 2) Erich Fuchs 1966 - Hagen Truckdriver ? 1963 - Munich Dortmund AZ 45 Js 27/61 3) Heinrich Gley 1963 - Munich Guard AZ Js 64-83/61 4) Werner (Karl ?) Dubois 1966 - Hagen Truckdriver 1963 - Munich 1971 - Hoffman ? Statement 16.09.61 5) Karl (Alfred?)Schluch 1963 - Munich Guard 11.11.61 BAL 162/208 AZ Js 64-83/61 AR-Z 252/59 Bd 8 p1514 6) Heinrich Unverhau 1948 - Euthenasia 1966 - Hagen 1963 - Munich 7) Robert Juhrs 1966 - Hagen Guard 1963 - Munich 8) Ernst Zierke 1966 - Hagen Guard 1963 - Munich 9) Kurt Franz 1964 - Dussledorf Cook 10) Fritz Tauscher 1963 - Munich 18.12.63 deposition BAL B162/208 AR-Z 252/59 11) Franz Stangl 1970 - Dussledorf Other : 12) Wilhelm Pfannenstiel - visited aug 42 1950 - Darmstadt Professor of Hygiene 1959 - Marburg 1965 - Munich (prosecution witness) 13) Kurt Gerstein - visited aug 42 report nuremberg PS-1553 Disinfection officer 14) Paul Rassiniers 'mystery visitor' E2) Belzec Ukranian camp staff : 1) Alexandr Illarionovich Semigodov deposition 24.05.73 Penza BAL B162/208 AR-Z 643/71 Bd IV f 704-11 2) Filipp Babenko protokol doprosa 12.11.48 ASBU Kiev 6397-58240 pp 12-19 3) Peter Petrowitsch Browzew (he escaped 3.2.43 and joined partisans) E3) Belzec Jewish inmates : 1) Rudolf Reder - 8/42 - 11/42 escaped 1963 - Munich 29.12.45 BAL 162/208 AR-Z 252/59 P1177-76 2) Chaim Hirszman - 11/42? - 7/43 escaped 19.03.46 in front of note murdered after testimony in lublin historical commission of Lublin"
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,689
|
Post by Nessie on Feb 12, 2023 20:07:02 GMT
It is good that after your strawman post, you post something with evidence to back up your argument. Shame you cannot link to what Rassinier said, but it is a start. Next time, link to your source.
How do you know shorts does not refer to shorts, in particular children's clothing? You make a good argument with the claim about taking walking aids from the disabled, but the claim needs checking for context and what happened next.
You still cannot get round the problem that, if the AR camps were transit points, it would make more sense for the Jews to keep the property they were travelling with, to go to their destination, than to lose all of it part way through the journey, which they would then have to complete naked. Ending up naked inside the camp is consistent with gassings, which is circumstantial evidence to corroborate all the witness who said that gassings took place.
Here you go. www.ihr.org/books/rassinier/debunking1-2.htmlGo back to the OP and reread point #2. Saying that a pile of shoes is proof of murder is not a sound argument. Another strawman, at no time have I said a pile of shoes is proof of murder. You have yet again lied about what I have actually argued. The mass theft of clothing, including shoes, is circumstantial evidence. I have made that claim on numerous occasions. Try to remember that. The theft of clothing is circumstantial evidence for, not proof of gassings. Circumstantial evidence is important. You would understand that if you understood evidencing and actually wanted to find out what happened at the AR camps and A-B Kremas. They are not identical. The AR camps took everything, down to the gold from teeth. That corroborates the witnesses, such as Krzepicki, who worked at the camp reception, to the deception the Nazis used, of sending people naked to showers, which were gas chambers. That same process happened at the labour camps people were sent to, as those camps were their destination. But deniers do not argue the AR camps was the destination, they argue there were transit camps. Why take everything from people who were only going to spend a few hours and be sent onwards to their destination? Why not wait till they get to their destination? That is why the mass theft fits better with gassings, than it does transit camp.
|
|
|
Post by ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐ด๐ป๐ธ on Feb 12, 2023 21:48:01 GMT
But deniers do not argue the AR camps was the destination, they argue there were transit camps. Why take everything from people who were only going to spend a few hours and be sent onwards to their destination? Why not wait till they get to their destination? That is why the mass theft fits better with gassings, than it does transit camp. The AR camps also functioned as Judenlagers and Zwangarbeitslager. People were transited to nearby Labour Camps for Jews, hence the plethora of nearby camps such as Sobibor and Belzec. Treblinka had Malkinia, TI and Kosow Podlaski to cater for as well as its own labour role.
|
|
|
Post by wheelbarrow on Feb 13, 2023 3:59:26 GMT
I thought I already explained the gold teeth stuff several times, which is trivially simple. The arrival procedure at Auschwitz as described by witnesses speaks for itself: confiscation of all belongings, removal of hair, undressing and bath. Show me the current location(s) of all underwear and all gold teeth and all walking sticks from Jews sent to AR camps that you claim was all taken. Provide statistics of gold teeth and walking stick usage proving that roughly all are accounted for. Show me evidence that Jews did not know how to create ersatz walking sticks. You are missing the point that at the AR camps, you are claiming they arrived, had everything taken from them and then naked, they were put back on the trains. As part of making no claims, I don't even claim Jews exist let alone the other stuff. That said, I've yet to see anyone else claiming they would be transported naked. Even as a straw man, I don't think I've seen anyone imputing it to others before you. Do you think about trainloads of naked Jews often? I accept mass gassings actually happened in folklore. There was no point because it was blocked as a legal avenue, and that's that. Why would Fedorenko deny mass killings at TII? Is that a good legal strategy or a distraction to the issues? Fedorenko's team did everything right and won his case until the ruling was administratively appealed. What "the courts?" Are you so challenged that you don't understand different jurisdictions even across the Atlantic? These were repeat Treblinka witnesses, and they complained at the time that Fedorenko's counsel was questioning them in a manner they were not accustomed to in Germany and Israel, which raises the question of why no one probed them. Your comments that I don't "go into any detail" for a hypothetical cross-examination almost defy belief, but you're Nessie I guess. I can't advise you what to tell a girl on a date either. I wouldn't be surprised you need a manual for that too. Cross-examination is somewhat of an art because it's limited in scope (depending on the jurisdiction) and must pertain to the direct examination. You can't just ask everything you want thoroughly as one could in a police interrogation. However, it's enough to work with. The master move is as follows: You identify a possible contradiction or falsehood. You elicit more details knowing they might be false, but which pin the witness to the story further. After you get the details, you telegraph to the witness what you're trying to ascertain but without the witness being 100% sure you know of the discrepancy yet. Thus the witness is baited anew into emergency clarifications/backtracking - maybe now he's not sure, maybe others told him. Finally, the witness' backtrack is confronted with a prior inconsistent statement. For example, a witness describes an outdoors nighttime incident even though another facet of his testimony required him being in locked barracks at night. No doubt you'll call even this example unfair, but this is obviously testimony-specific and every litigation attorney perfects his own style based on what the rules allow, so it's nonsensical to ask - generally - how one would do it. The report is dated March 1945, and purports to show based on the captured Topf and construction documents that four million were killed. As a folklorist, your story is as valid as anyone's so I'd like to hear you tell it: Aside from whatever your idea about "the original building plan" and modifications seems to be, is it your final and irrevocable position that objects in other documents are not consistently "camouflaged?" Sure, repurposing is too generous Just an erroneous usage of the term. Fascinating, still don't care to.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,689
|
Post by Nessie on Feb 13, 2023 16:08:41 GMT
But deniers do not argue the AR camps was the destination, they argue there were transit camps. Why take everything from people who were only going to spend a few hours and be sent onwards to their destination? Why not wait till they get to their destination? That is why the mass theft fits better with gassings, than it does transit camp. The AR camps also functioned as Judenlagers and Zwangarbeitslager. People were transited to nearby Labour Camps for Jews, hence the plethora of nearby camps such as Sobibor and Belzec. Treblinka had Malkinia, TI and Kosow Podlaski to cater for as well as its own labour role. For which you have no evidence.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,689
|
Post by Nessie on Feb 13, 2023 16:27:06 GMT
You are missing the point that at the AR camps, you are claiming they arrived, had everything taken from them and then naked, they were put back on the trains. As part of making no claims, I don't even claim Jews exist let alone the other stuff. That said, I've yet to see anyone else claiming they would be transported naked. Even as a straw man, I don't think I've seen anyone imputing it to others before you. Do you think about trainloads of naked Jews often? I am pointing out the ridiculousness of the denier claim that the AR camps were transit camps, but that they were also used to steal everything from those arriving. If that did happen, then they left naked. The problem with deniers is that they do not think logically and to a logical conclusion. Why not give a straight answer? Just admit that you deny mass gassings took place inside the AR camps and the A-B Kremas. It was not blocked, it was agreed between the prosecution and defence that mass gassings happened, due to all the evidence and the Nazis admitting to it. Fedorenko is yet another Nazi, who could have denied gassings took place and given testimony as to what did happen. There were no denial laws to break when they were tried, so there was no legal risk there. All they needed to do was evidence what they claimed happened, which they could not do, because those people were gassed. How do you know that inconsistencies are due to the witness lying? Can you link the report? As a historian, I use evidence to prove what happened. The contemporaneous evidence directly pertaining to the Kremas is that the original plans were modified and gas chambers were built inside. Every single witness who worked there, documents from the camp and Topf & Sons and the circumstantial evidence all, together, prove mass gassings. hearsay /หhษชษseษช/ noun: hearsay - information received from other people which cannot be substantiated; rumour. - Law - the report of another person's words by a witness, which is usually disallowed as evidence in a court of law. Those who did not see the mass gassings or inside the gas chambers, who describe what they were told by others happened, are giving hearsay evidence. It greatly weakens you claims, when you cannot evidence thenm. Would you believe someone who refused to evidence what they had claimed?
|
|
|
Post by wheelbarrow on Feb 15, 2023 1:30:12 GMT
As part of making no claims, I don't even claim Jews exist let alone the other stuff. That said, I've yet to see anyone else claiming they would be transported naked. Even as a straw man, I don't think I've seen anyone imputing it to others before you. Do you think about trainloads of naked Jews often? I am pointing out the ridiculousness of the denier claim that the AR camps were transit camps, but that they were also used to steal everything from those arriving. If that did happen, then they left naked. The problem with deniers is that they do not think logically and to a logical conclusion. Hypothetically, when the bath is over one could get their previous clothes back or downgrades. Hypothetically, more clothes could arrive at the camp than with the people, maybe from multiple directions. Hypothetically the camp (complex) could literally be designated a Clothing Factory hub, and if there's anything one wouldn't be fretting over it's insufficient clothing as a bottleneck. Why not give a straight answer? Just admit that you deny mass gassings took place inside the AR camps and the A-B Kremas. As long as it's talked about, it's part of folklore and I'm not denying anything. You're once again in denial after it's been explained multiple times. Also, they got similar charges to those who used to be teenaged typists. www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-64036465 Weird stuff! Mr. Fedorenko was a conscripted Soviet POW who testified to being beaten and intimidated by Germans and who, like many Jews, worked for Germans. It is not up to a witness to omnisciently deny or affirm something happened, which is called speculation. Gibson already explained this to you. Very hard to take seriously someone who doesn't get it or expressly misrepresents the above. By not playing dumb. The report is in Russian and I have facsimiles somewhere. I can try to find it and upload it, but I'm not sure there's a current link to it as such. Parts of it were translated by Mattogno and perhaps Pressac. Your dear witnesses had access to the camp plans and documentation as early as February 1945, and those witnesses are not Topf engineers. Lmao you're not a historian, you're an overweight guy from Scotland who stares at computer screens way too much. You just assume someone else dealt with it and resigned to giving another sermon. Here's an example of what would occur in cross-examination. Let's jump right in. Q: You previously said "Numerous documents record the building of gas chambers, which corroborates the witnesses." Isn't it true that you have not read the numerous documents? A:
They are giving information which cannot be substantiated? That's what you mean? Okay then. That supposes any claims were made regarding that. I'm simply observing that your 2022 arguments and methodology remain dumb, and the evidence is your posts.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,689
|
Post by Nessie on Feb 15, 2023 11:25:40 GMT
I am pointing out the ridiculousness of the denier claim that the AR camps were transit camps, but that they were also used to steal everything from those arriving. If that did happen, then they left naked. The problem with deniers is that they do not think logically and to a logical conclusion. Hypothetically, when the bath is over one could get their previous clothes back or downgrades. Hypothetically, more clothes could arrive at the camp than with the people, maybe from multiple directions. Hypothetically the camp (complex) could literally be designated a Clothing Factory hub, and if there's anything one wouldn't be fretting over it's insufficient clothing as a bottleneck. Therein lies your problem, that claim is hypothetical. There is no evidence their clothes and possessions were deloused and given back to them. All delousing and property theft took place on arrival at their destination camp. The exception the deniers claim is for the AR camps, where people were supposedly deloused enroute to their destination. Calling mass gassings folklore is denying they happened. When the evidence a crime was committed is overwhelming, the prosecution and defence agree that it took place and proceed from that. They then move on to the next stage of identification and conduct. There is evidence that SS recruits who worked at the AR camps, did so under threat of discipline if they dissented in any way, but that is not unusual for any military. Fedorenko was not speculating, he was an eyewitness. If he had seen something other than mass gassings happening at TII, then a hearing in the USA was the time to do it. It would have been hugely embarrassing for the USSR and to the benefit of the USA, for Fedorenko to use that hearing to reveal a Soviet hoax. Yet again, you rely on your opinion. Why not use evidence? What have you got against evidence? I will wait for you to produce some evidence. Who are you cross examining in that example? If Tauber was cross-examined by producing documents from Topf & Sins about building gas chambers inside the Kremas, you would be presenting evidence that corroborates him. The methodology of gathering evidence and then chronologically and logically piecing that evidence together to reach a conclusion, is dumb, why?
|
|
|
Post by wheelbarrow on Feb 17, 2023 4:40:56 GMT
Hypothetically, when the bath is over one could get their previous clothes back or downgrades. Hypothetically, more clothes could arrive at the camp than with the people, maybe from multiple directions. Hypothetically the camp (complex) could literally be designated a Clothing Factory hub, and if there's anything one wouldn't be fretting over it's insufficient clothing as a bottleneck. Therein lies your problem, that claim is hypothetical. There is no evidence their clothes and possessions were deloused and given back to them. All delousing and property theft took place on arrival at their destination camp. The exception the deniers claim is for the AR camps, where people were supposedly deloused enroute to their destination. Supposed absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, especially when it comes to evidence of absence of clothing. As for what "deniers" claim, please cite a "denier" who claims, more or less, that: "All delousing and property theft took place on arrival at their destination camp. The exception [...] is for the AR camps." I'm not denying it's stuff that's talked about. Therefore I did my duty of not denying anything. Yeah, the overwhelming part for the defense being the one where the court won't consider it in the judgment. No agreement involved. According to Nessie, the prosecution was so overwhelmed by evidence that most Belzec defendants' cases got dismissed via pretrial diversion.
LMAO, okay than. In the universe where Mr. Fedorenko was a recruit, Jewish recruits from the Warsaw Ghetto fought on the Eastern Front and died for the Reich facing the Soviet juggernaut. Mr. Fedorenko was actually in fear for the welfare of some of his relatives stuck in the Soviet Union. As such, he avoided anything that would have been "hugely embarrassing" for the USSR, a place where he faced death. As you were already told on former RODOHs, the United States refused to unambiguously assign Katyn to the Soviet Union. Cross-examination time. Q: Isn't it true that when you write "Fedorenko was not speculating, he was an eyewitness," you don't actually know what Fedorenko testified to? A:
In this example, the evidence is testimony and weighing testimony is using evidence.
Nessie: The documents describe the construction of undressing rooms, gas chambers with ventilation and installation of ovens for rapid, multiple cremations. The Topf & Sons engineers admitted they knew that was for killing people. They are totally independent of the Jewish witnesses. That is strong corroborating evidence the Jewish witnesses are being truthful. WB: "Strong corroborating evidence" actually contradicted by building plans, which has other designations. When the Soviets created their Auschwitz report, did they interrogate Topf & Sรถhne engineers before or after its completion? Nessie: The original building plan was modified, as described by the engineers. That original plan therefore does not contradict what they describe. Numerous documents record the building of gas chambers, which corroborates the witnesses. WB: The report is dated March 1945, and purports to show based on the captured Topf and construction documents that four million were killed. As a folklorist, your story is as valid as anyone's so I'd like to hear you tell it: Aside from whatever your idea about "the original building plan" and modifications seems to be, is it your final and irrevocable position that objects in other documents are not consistently "camouflaged?" Nessie: ["I'm a historian."]
Yeah, enough of this crap.
Q: You previously said "Numerous documents record the building of gas chambers, which corroborates the witnesses." Isn't it true that you have not read the numerous documents?
A:
These aren't things you've done or seem capable of doing, but even that fails if you
- don't know what evidence is; - fail to quality control evidence; - ignore or willfully fail to gather evidence tending to disprove your conclusion.
|
|