Witness Question for Nessie

[Keen]

If the forensics don't support the claim, it doesn't matter if the witnesses support one another.

Exactly.

"Corroboration" without substantiation has no evidentiary value.

Could people have actually been buried there in mass graves? I can see no reason why mass graves should not exist at these sites.

Actually, there are many reasons that I want to point out and discuss with you, but not right now. It's Saturday night and I'm thirsty.

TBC.

You know my stance, and I know yours. My comment is generally aimed at lurkers more than at you. To summarize, you are correct and you add balance to the debate by pointing out that exactly 0 huge mass graves have ever been proven to exist. My belief that there 'should be' 'some' is not of any evidentiary value, currently there are exactly 0 proven mass graves at these sites.

I was going to specifically comment on this:

I can see no reason why mass graves should not exist at these sites.

And the issue, as I see it, isn't whether or not mass graves "exist at these sites," but rather, whether or not any mass graves, if they actaully do exist, would exist "within the boundary of the camp." There are many reasons why, even if mass graves actually existed, that they would NOT have been dug within the boundaries of the camps.

[Nessie]

Clearly Wiernik did not write everything in the document, at most he contributed one part. Which part is that? Does it mention chlorine?

You said you aren't suggesting forgery, but now you say you think these "other authors" invented material and attributed it to Wiernik. That's forgery.

If that account is not Wiernik, then it is a forgery.

Different handwriting doesn't mean it's not Wiernik. Statements are often dictated and transcribed.

So, which one is it? You originally attributed the entire manuscript to Wiernik, so which, if any, is his handwriting and who are the others? Did they write what he said verbatim? You missed out a vital part of information when you first posted about the document, as you tried to craft the narrative that Wiernik first wrote about chlorine and then changed that to an engine. It is an example of your lazy attitude to evidencing.

https://wiki.codohforum.com/pages/index ... Manuscript

"The newly arrived transport from Międzyrzec was unloaded at the ramp. Eighty percent of the bodies were corpses. The cause of death was chlorine gas released into the wagons by the Germans"

That is a description of a transport that had arrived at the camp, where it is believed the Nazis used chlorine to kill those who arrived dead. The next references are to the gas chambers;

"On the roof is a safety hatch, used in the event of chlorine poisoning. After the appropriate amount of chlorine has been added, the hatch closes hermetically."

The next references are to the gas chambers, but also to a transport;

"Then, a hose was connected to the gas chamber's engine from a Soviet tank, and the gas was pumped in. Death lasted 15-20 minutes. Transports arriving in the evening were killed through a safety hatch, where chlorine gas was poured onto the crowded mass of people."

Does that mean exhaust was used for the chambers and that chlorine was used to kill people inside the transports? Could it be that by the time Wiernik wrote a Year in Treblinka, that he had learned the Nazis did not use chlorine to kill people in the transports, by opening hatches and pouring it into the wagons?

[Eye of Zyclone]

If you and a friend witnesses another friend being assaulted, would your evidence not be real evidence, because you might be lying that your friend was assaulted?

Yes, it would not be real evidence. Words that may or may not be true are not real evidence.

If witness evidence is not real evidence, how come it is the most commonly used evidence in courts and with journalists and historians?

Because human justice is imperfect and makes many mistakes.

Alien abduction is not possible, because there is nowhere inhabitable, that is near enough to earth to get here. There is also the issue of why, if some alien could travel the many light years it would take to get here, why they would abduct a random person and not make themselves known to any government? If we could travel to another planet inhabited by intelligent, advanced beings, we would announce our arrival to that world.

Today's humans can see only a tiny portion of the universe and know nothing of the travel technologies that other intelligent beings might possess.

UFO conspiracy theorists believe that extraterrestial visitors are known to some governments and that those governments are hiding it from the public, just like Holohoax conspiracy theorists believe that the Nazis managed to hide their alleged program for the extermination of the Jews and to destroy any tangible evidence of its existence and implementation.

It is a false analogy to compare witness to alleged alien abductions to Germans building gas chambers.

No, it's a perfectly valid analogy. Soon or late, you'll have to face the fact that antirevisionist Holocaust historians are colleagues of ghost hunters and alien abduction researchers.

[Keen]

According to the Jewish astronomer Carl Sagan, corroboration ("that many people tell the same story") would be "the clearest evidence for it not being good evidence"

Exactly.

Carl Sagan on Alien Abduction
...To be taken seriously, you need physical evidence that can be examined at leisure by skeptical scientists... Precisely because of human fallibility, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence... My second point is that to the extent that extraordinary claims require extraordinary investigations, those investigations must be true to the spirit of science. And that means highly skeptical, demanding, rigorous standards of evidence. There's not a hint of that from alien abduction enthusiasts.

And there is not a hint of that from any of the frauds like Kola, Haimi, Colls, etc.

[Stubble]

Clearly Wiernik did not write everything in the document, at most he contributed one part. Which part is that? Does it mention chlorine?

You said you aren't suggesting forgery, but now you say you think these "other authors" invented material and attributed it to Wiernik. That's forgery.

If that account is not Wiernik, then it is a forgery.

Different handwriting doesn't mean it's not Wiernik. Statements are often dictated and transcribed.

So, which one is it? You originally attributed the entire manuscript to Wiernik, so which, if any, is his handwriting and who are the others? Did they write what he said verbatim? You missed out a vital part of information when you first posted about the document, as you tried to craft the narrative that Wiernik first wrote about chlorine and then changed that to an engine. It is an example of your lazy attitude to evidencing.

https://wiki.codohforum.com/pages/index ... Manuscript

"The newly arrived transport from Międzyrzec was unloaded at the ramp. Eighty percent of the bodies were corpses. The cause of death was chlorine gas released into the wagons by the Germans"

That is a description of a transport that had arrived at the camp, where it is believed the Nazis used chlorine to kill those who arrived dead. The next references are to the gas chambers;

"On the roof is a safety hatch, used in the event of chlorine poisoning. After the appropriate amount of chlorine has been added, the hatch closes hermetically."

The next references are to the gas chambers, but also to a transport;

"Then, a hose was connected to the gas chamber's engine from a Soviet tank, and the gas was pumped in. Death lasted 15-20 minutes. Transports arriving in the evening were killed through a safety hatch, where chlorine gas was poured onto the crowded mass of people."

Does that mean exhaust was used for the chambers and that chlorine was used to kill people inside the transports? Could it be that by the time Wiernik wrote a Year in Treblinka, that he had learned the Nazis did not use chlorine to kill people in the transports, by opening hatches and pouring it into the wagons?

This holocaust pilpul is truly remarkable. You are pivoting to an extremely problematic part of the official narrative not being a problem by adopting the revisionist thesis here and then saying 'see, it isn't a problem'.

You don't even realize you just pissed all over not only the witness, but the fucking process...

You are content to treat this as a one off Ina vacuum despite the policy of interrogators to 'coach' witnesses as outlined by PoD.

[Keen]

The forensics do support the claim

[Keen]

You cannot prove there are zero mass graves at the AR camps, by merely denying the evidence of mass graves. You need evidence from eyewitnesses who worked at the camp, who state there were no mass graves. Or an aerial photo that shows no sign of disturbed ground. Or a geophysical survey that finds undisturbed ground.Or documents that records mass transports of hundreds of thousands of people back out of the camps.

A bald faced lie and a logical fallacy.

But what do you expect from a mentall ill cult member?

[Keen]

My method of corroboration [starts by cravenly refusing to define what I mean by "corroboration"]

cor·rob·or·ation

evidence which confirms - OR - supports a statement or theory

[Keen]

Ad hominem, as you are losing the argument.

See next post.

[Keen]

You are such a child!

Nesserto must be losing the argument.

[Keen]

That's why the statements of so-called witnesses are not good evidence and even not evidence at all. In other words, Carl Sagan said that several people saying the same untrue thing don't make that thing real and proven as long as there is no unimpeachable tangible evidence that it's real. In short, he said that only strong tangible evidence is real evidence and that testimonial "evidence" is not real evidence, as any scientist of the modern era would say.

EXACTLY - just as it is with the fraudulently alleged "huge mass graves."

[Keen]

You've done nothing except show why this corroboration is worthless.

After the mentally ill HC cult members' "conversion of evidence" theory was shot to hell, they rehashed it into the "corroboration" nonsense (without ever defining what they actually meant).

What disingenuous nonsense will they turn to next?

[Keen]

Especially the craven, low IQ, mentally ill HC cult members.

[Keen]

You don't even realize you just pissed all over not only the witness, but the fucking process...

That just goes to show that nesserto is not only mentally ill, but mentally retarded as well.

[pilgrimofdark]

Wow. Nessie is unable to:

- differentiate between my post and someone else's ... and attributes another poster's phrase to me,
> despite the username visible on each post.

- differentiate between an author's own words and a document they quote from,
> despite the phrase "Laura Jockusch quotes..."

- equate two passages that are the same ... but from different translations of a document he just read and analyzed,
> despite the sentence "These are different versions of the same document."

Is this deliberate or inadvertent