|
|
Post by ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐ด๐ป๐ธ on Nov 11, 2022 11:45:30 GMT
The denier narrative of no mass murders is not evidenced at all. Marian Olszuk |
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,206 
|
Post by Nessie on Nov 11, 2022 12:21:06 GMT
The denier narrative of no mass murders is not evidenced at all. Marian Olszuk Except he did not see mass transports of people back out of TII and he did see the disposal of clothing, heard distressed people and reported a terrible smell. How does that fit with the denier narrative of people were showered, treated well and left the camp? |
|
|
|
Post by ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐ด๐ป๐ธ on Nov 11, 2022 20:13:20 GMT
Except he did not see mass transports of people back out of TII and he did see the disposal of clothing, heard distressed people and reported a terrible smell. How does that fit with the denier narrative of people were showered, treated well and left the camp? Because as mentioned in other threads there were no mass transports into this place. In all probability and likelihood the people got off at destinations prior to this end point. People have heard of Jewish women screaming in other camps out of sheer desperation. Screaming Jewish women do not in the slightest suggest extermination; they heard the rumours and most likely thought they were going to straight to hell. How well they were treated depends on the camp. Peter Lantos describes his work experience for the Reich as a positive event as do others except towards the end when the allies bombed the supply lines. Olszuk saw into the camp and saw nothing untoward; nothing that remotely suggests extermination. There were executions near TI. No one is saying there was not a holocaust but the train time table documents show those transports were not part of it and Olszuks credible statements suggest strongly that this TII was not part of it either. One credible statement is far more convincing that hundreds of nonsense statements regarding burning blood etc. |
|
|
|
Post by Gibson on Nov 11, 2022 23:58:12 GMT
I use the methodology I [claim] was taught in history lessons at school, then at university and the police.... In trying to explain that simple, widely used methodology, I have clearly confused Gibson, who appears to have never had a history lesson, even at school. Thanks Gibson for your very welcome and excellent analysis of Nessieโs nonsensinsical arguing style. You may be interested in this topic thread where one of your unsuccesful attempts at educating Nessie at the Skeptics forum is included for analysis: rodoh.info/post/8235/threadI think it is obvious that anyone who can not accept (presumably because they cannot comprehend) the irrefutable logic of Gibsonโs analysis, clearly is not educated enough nor intelligent enough to gain entry to a University, nor could have passed a university history degree and could not have worked with the police. That would explain why a holocaust true-believer would need to discuss anonymously when they need not fear prosecution or persecution for that. Yes, I have explained these same points to him several times. I imagine you guys have as well. I think this thread will be my last attempt. As long as he insists that any analysis of testimonies is an "argument from incredulity" then worthwhile discussion with him is not possible. |
|
|
|
Post by Gibson on Nov 12, 2022 0:43:53 GMT
Nessie,
Since you do not want to discuss Hoess because of the complications with the torture, let's consider another example that you are familiar with. From Wiernik's Treblinka account,
In the first passage, we have a claim about tearing children in half. I suppose we could debate whether it is possible to do this in some fashion, but I think most men would not be able to, certainly not easily. For sake of taste, I will leave the difficulties of this task to the imagination. I would judge this claim to be impossible the way it's described.
The second passage describes a scene that is certainly physically possible. One could burn bodies on a fire and have a toast with brandy. But when I read something like this, red flags go up immediately because these lurid descriptions are par for the course with wartime atrocity propaganda. There's nothing impossible about spearing a baby on bayonet either, but such stories are more often than not invented in order to stir up outrage. Even if the events described are not strictly impossible, any "eyewitness" account written in this style should be treated with extreme caution.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,206
|
Post by Nessie on Nov 12, 2022 8:17:22 GMT
Except he did not see mass transports of people back out of TII and he did see the disposal of clothing, heard distressed people and reported a terrible smell. How does that fit with the denier narrative of people were showered, treated well and left the camp? Because as mentioned in other threads there were no mass transports into this place. In all probability and likelihood the people got off at destinations prior to this end point. People have heard of Jewish women screaming in other camps out of sheer desperation. Screaming Jewish women do not in the slightest suggest extermination; they heard the rumours and most likely thought they were going to straight to hell. How well they were treated depends on the camp. Peter Lantos describes his work experience for the Reich as a positive event as do others except towards the end when the allies bombed the supply lines. Olszuk saw into the camp and saw nothing untoward; nothing that remotely suggests extermination. There were executions near TI. No one is saying there was not a holocaust but the train time table documents show those transports were not part of it and Olszuks credible statements suggest strongly that this TII was not part of it either. One credible statement is far more convincing that hundreds of nonsense statements regarding burning blood etc. You are cherry picking the one statement that you can use to support your theory. You are wrong to right off all the statements and other evidence of mass transports to TII, because one witness used a figure of speech about burning blood. |
|
|
|
Post by ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐ด๐ป๐ธ on Nov 12, 2022 8:21:42 GMT
other evidence of mass transports to TII. Where are these documents. |
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,206
|
Post by Nessie on Nov 12, 2022 8:26:24 GMT
Nessie, Since you do not want to discuss Hoess because of the complications with the torture, let's consider another example that you are familiar with. From Wiernik's Treblinka account, In the first passage, we have a claim about tearing children in half. I suppose we could debate whether it is possible to do this in some fashion, but I think most men would not be able to, certainly not easily. For sake of taste, I will leave the difficulties of this task to the imagination. I would judge this claim to be impossible the way it's described. The second passage describes a scene that is certainly physically possible. One could burn bodies on a fire and have a toast with brandy. But when I read something like this, red flags go up immediately because these lurid descriptions are par for the course with wartime atrocity propaganda. There's nothing impossible about spearing a baby on bayonet either, but such stories are more often than not invented in order to stir up outrage. Even if the events described are not strictly impossible, any "eyewitness" account written in this style should be treated with extreme caution. If Weirnik was the only witness to be so emotive in his descriptions and his claims about cruelty were not corroborated by other evidence, then you would be right to treat his testimony with extreme caution. But every single Jewish witness used highly emotive descriptives as to what happened and they are all corroborated by other evidence. Just because some of their testimony reads like atrocity propaganda, does not therefore mean it is atrocity propaganda. You need evidence.
Your personal credulity and opinion about the witnesses description is not a reliable indicator of truthfulness. Corroborating evidence is. Opinion on what witnesses said is not how history is taught at school or university. Students of history are taught to follow the evidence.
Since you have dodged my questions about how history is taught, it is obvious you do not know. Your ignorance about the importance of evidence and not opinion, is why you have fallen for the denier hoax.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,206
|
Post by Nessie on Nov 12, 2022 8:27:30 GMT
other evidence of mass transports to TII. Where are these documents. I find it hard to believe that after all this time, you are not aware of the documents that record mass transports to TII, as the ghettos were being emptied. You have discussed those documents. |
|
|
|
Post by ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐ด๐ป๐ธ on Nov 12, 2022 8:37:43 GMT
Where are these documents. I find it hard to believe that after all this time, you are not aware of the documents that record mass transports to TII, as the ghettos were being emptied. You have discussed those documents. Documents of transports specifically to TII. Other than the Stroop report please. |
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,206
|
Post by Nessie on Nov 12, 2022 8:46:49 GMT
I find it hard to believe that after all this time, you are not aware of the documents that record mass transports to TII, as the ghettos were being emptied. You have discussed those documents. Documents of transports specifically to TII. Other than the Stroop report please. Stop trying to derail the thread. You know the documents I am referring to and there are threads discussing them and how each document refers to the camp.
In this thread, you are supposed to critique the methodology I use, whereby I gather contemporaneous evidence as to what happened and then logically and chronologically piece that evidence together, to see what corroborates and reach a conclusion. According to you lot, that is wrong and instead, I should use person opinion!
|
|
|
|
Post by ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐ด๐ป๐ธ on Nov 12, 2022 9:14:17 GMT
I gather contemporaneous evidence as to what happened and then logically and chronologically piece that evidence together, to see what corroborates and reach a conclusion. Contemporaneous lies is what you call evidence. You reach your conclusion on bias only, evidence has nothing to do with it. |
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,206
|
Post by Nessie on Nov 12, 2022 9:28:28 GMT
I gather contemporaneous evidence as to what happened and then logically and chronologically piece that evidence together, to see what corroborates and reach a conclusion. Contemporaneous lies is what you call evidence. You reach your conclusion on bias only, evidence has nothing to do with it. How do you determine a witness is lying? Describe your methodology. |
|
|
|
Post by Gibson on Nov 12, 2022 16:26:13 GMT
Nessie, Since you do not want to discuss Hoess because of the complications with the torture, let's consider another example that you are familiar with. From Wiernik's Treblinka account, In the first passage, we have a claim about tearing children in half. I suppose we could debate whether it is possible to do this in some fashion, but I think most men would not be able to, certainly not easily. For sake of taste, I will leave the difficulties of this task to the imagination. I would judge this claim to be impossible the way it's described. The second passage describes a scene that is certainly physically possible. One could burn bodies on a fire and have a toast with brandy. But when I read something like this, red flags go up immediately because these lurid descriptions are par for the course with wartime atrocity propaganda. There's nothing impossible about spearing a baby on bayonet either, but such stories are more often than not invented in order to stir up outrage. Even if the events described are not strictly impossible, any "eyewitness" account written in this style should be treated with extreme caution. If Weirnik was the only witness to be so emotive in his descriptions and his claims about cruelty were not corroborated by other evidence, then you would be right to treat his testimony with extreme caution. But every single Jewish witness used highly emotive descriptives as to what happened and they are all corroborated by other evidence. Just because some of their testimony reads like atrocity propaganda, does not therefore mean it is atrocity propaganda. You need evidence.
Your personal credulity and opinion about the witnesses description is not a reliable indicator of truthfulness. Corroborating evidence is. Opinion on what witnesses said is not how history is taught at school or university. Students of history are taught to follow the evidence.
Since you have dodged my questions about how history is taught, it is obvious you do not know. Your ignorance about the importance of evidence and not opinion, is why you have fallen for the denier hoax.
"Emotive descriptions" are the hallmark of atrocity propaganda. If "every single Jewish witness" gives statements in this style, that should give you pause about accepting them as factual. Reading Wiernik's account and noting the propagandistic literary style and the implausible claims and the fact that he isn't a disinterested observer is not at all the same as "personal credulity" based on whim. Your definition of "personal credulity" is too broad and improperly includes legitimate analysis of evidence! Wikipedia: "Atrocity propaganda is the spreading of information about the crimes committed by an enemy, which can be factual, but often includes or features deliberate fabrications or exaggerations." The British Library: "World War One atrocity propaganda was a specific propaganda technique that sought to garner support for war and provide a moral explanation for it, by highlighting the crimes and atrocities committed by the of the enemy." "The power of atrocity stories derived in part from their ability to stand either alone, as singular acts of barbarism and moral depravity, or as a series of pre-meditated collective behaviours that condemned a nation. These shocking stories allowed propagandists to justify the war, encourage men to enlist, raise funds for war loans schemes, and shake the United States from its neutrality." www.bl.uk/world-war-one/articles/atrocity-propagandaWhen you read an account saying the guards were tearing babies in half and things of this nature, you have to ask yourself if this is an honest description of real events or if this is a story that has been invented for the express purpose of provoking moral outrage. My view of these accounts is that they are 1) written in a propagandistic literary style and include morally outrageous elements that are unlikely or impossible, 2) the stories are similar and cliched but also highly contradictory. They are questionable as historical sources. They may contain some correct information (competent atrocity propaganda always does) but because the accounts are a mixture of fact and fiction we cannot rely on these accounts as proof that millions of people were killed. |
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,206
|
Post by Nessie on Nov 12, 2022 17:24:58 GMT
....."Emotive descriptions" are the hallmark of atrocity propaganda. If "every single Jewish witness" gives statements in this style, that should give you pause about accepting them as factual. Whilst that is true, it is only true to a limited extent. Credibility and truthfulness are different. You concentrate on credibility, I concentrate on truthfulness. When I first read Jewish testimony, I did think it was not particularly credible, because of the excessive use of emotive descriptives. I realised that by concentrating on credibility, deniers think they are reading false propaganda, when it is just the way eastern European Jews speak. I saw that the Nazis relate the same narrative as the Jews, but they do it in a matter of fact way, because they were following orders and believed they were doing good. I soon saw that the denier attacks on credibility of witnesses, did not work with the Nazis, so they have to switch to claiming they were all coerced into lying. There is another group, the Polish civilians, who witnessed much of what was happening. They fall in between the more matter of fact Nazis and the emotive descriptives of the Jews. That makes three individual separate groups, who all say the same thing, but in different ways. The Jews are the least credible, because, as you say, their testimony is like atrocity propaganda. There are explanations for that, PSD, survivor guilt and a need to convey the horror of what happened, as they had helped to kill many fellow Jews to survive themselves. I see very little legitimate analysis of the evidence. Instead, I see a lot of digging about to find excuses to disbelieve the claims and no attempt to look for corroborative evidence, logically and chronologically pieced together. Just because the Jewish testimony, at times, reads like atrocity propaganda, does not therefore mean it is atrocity propaganda. Do you understand that a credible witness can be a total liar and that a witness who is not credible, can be telling the truth? Do you see how credibility and truthfulness differ? Please describe your methodology as to how you determine if a witness is lying or not. Please stop dodging my request for you to explain your methodology for determining what has happened in the past. |
|
