Comments on other threads.

[Nessie]

It is not an assertion.

It is. "The Earth is round" is an assertion.

No it is not. AI definition, my bold; "An assertion is a strong, confident statement or declaration that someone believes is true, often made without immediate proof or evidence". There is evidence to prove the earth is round and the Holocaust included mass murder in gas chambers. I evidence.

For example, witnesses at the AR camps state that bodies were exhumed from the mass graves and cremated. That matches the archaeological finds of areas of buried cremated remains.

The claim is ~1,500,000+ buried, disinterred, cremated, and reburied and, no, that has NEVER been demonstrated archaeologically. Not even close.

That is your opinion. I say it has been demonstrated and I can provide evidence to back that up, which you cannot. Evidence to back you would be GPR surveys of the parts of the camp witnesses claimed mass graves were located, that found little to no disturbed ground. You do not have that.

I can evidence hundreds of thousands buried and cremated, you cannot counter that with evidence of those people leaving the camp, negating the need for any mass graves.

You are wrong to claim that I have said that we can ignore what does not match, which is why you will never be able to link to and quote me saying such.

You have said this repeatedly. Here is you claiming Reder's OBVIOUSLY FALSE descriptions of the mass graves at Belzec are just fine because it's "normal" for witnesses to hallucinate images that aren't really there.

That Reder's recollection does not precisely match Kola's findings, and is exaggerated, is to be expected. Multiple studies of witness estimation of size and numbers prove that it is often poor. Revisionist attempts to discredit witnesses never take into account studies of memory and recall.

viewtopic.php?p=19827&#p19827

And here is you outrageously defending Vrba's fabricated story about Himmler visiting the camp to observe the inauguration of the Birkenau crematoria. You argued that if we can just sweep the errors under the rug and declare the rest of it to be "corroborated." Vrba dedicates multiple pages of elaborate description to an event that we know for a fact DID NOT HAPPEN.

"You have not dealt with corroboration. You have merely shown that he got dates wrong. On the events he is relating, he is corroborated."

viewtopic.php?t=69

You have confirmed that I have never said those witnesses should be ignored. Instead, I have done exactly what I explained to you when I said "you are unable to counter that I can provide explanations when witnesses say things that do not match. Those explanations are based on studies of witnesses and their memory, recollection and estimations."

I do not "sweep the errors under the rug". Instead, I explain them, based on the studies of witnesses you ignore, such as making mistakes with dates and the number of graves, due to memory issues.

You have gone on to ignore my point that there is not one single witness who describes a different process for prisoners brought to the death camps.

[Archie]

No it is not. AI definition, my bold; "An assertion is a strong, confident statement or declaration that someone believes is true, often made without immediate proof or evidence". There is evidence to prove the earth is round and the Holocaust included mass murder in gas chambers. I evidence.

Nope.

"Often" in the sense that colloquially there is often but not always an implication that the claim is unsupported, but the term is not categorically defined by the degree of support. In other words, in common speech, "assertion" may be used as shorthand for "mere assertion" or "unsupported assertion," but that is only a subcategory of assertions.

I asked the AI directly whether "The Earth is round" is an assertion and it answered me correctly.

Q: Is the sentence "The Earth is round" an assertion?

Yes. "The Earth is round" is an assertion.

An assertion is a declarative statement that claims something is true or false. The sentence "The Earth is round" makes a claim about the Earth and can be evaluated for truth, so it qualifies as an assertion.

For comparison:

Y - Assertion: "The Earth is round."
N - Question: "Is the Earth round?"
N - Command: "Believe that the Earth is round."
N - Exclamation: "What a round Earth!"

So, grammatically and philosophically, "The Earth is round" is an assertion because it states a proposition that can be true or false.

Q: In this case, I think it would be fair to say that it is a well-supported assertion. If there is a lot of support for the claim does it cease to be an assertion?

A: No. In most philosophical and logical usages, the degree of support for a claim is independent of whether it is an assertion.

An assertion is an act of putting forward a proposition as true. Whether the proposition is:

poorly supported,
moderately supported,
overwhelmingly supported, or
even known with near certainty,

it is still an assertion when someone states it.

For example:

"The Earth is round." → assertion, very well supported.
"The Earth orbits the Sun." → assertion, very well supported.
"There is life on Europa." → assertion, currently much less supported.

All three are assertions because they are statements offered as true.

Sometimes people use "assertion" colloquially to imply "a claim lacking evidence" or "just an unsupported statement." That's a common rhetorical use, but it differs from the technical meaning in logic and philosophy. In the technical sense, evidence does not change a proposition from being an assertion into something else.

You might say:

"The Earth is round" is an assertion, and a very well-supported one.

or

"The Earth is round" is an assertion whose truth is established by extensive evidence.

The support affects the justification of the assertion, not its status as an assertion.

It's amazing to me that you can't understand this. It seems you are unable reason abstractly. For you the word "assertion" has an negative connotation and therefore in your mind anything you think is true cannot be an "assertion."

[HansHill]

It's amazing to me that you can't understand this. It seems you are unable reason abstractly. For you the word "assertion" has an negative connotation and therefore in your mind anything you think is true cannot be an "assertion."

This is kinda like when he didn’t understand the concept of falsification. And because the first syllable contains “fals(e)” he just assumed falsification = le bad. There was a whole thread about it:

viewtopic.php?p=21456#p21456

Very childlike, very low IQ.

[Nessie]

No it is not. AI definition, my bold; "An assertion is a strong, confident statement or declaration that someone believes is true, often made without immediate proof or evidence". There is evidence to prove the earth is round and the Holocaust included mass murder in gas chambers. I evidence.

Nope.

"Often" in the sense that colloquially there is often but not always an implication that the claim is unsupported, but the term is not categorically defined by the degree of support. In other words, in common speech, "assertion" may be used as shorthand for "mere assertion" or "unsupported assertion," but that is only a subcategory of assertions.

I asked the AI directly whether "The Earth is round" is an assertion and it answered me correctly.

Q: Is the sentence "The Earth is round" an assertion?

Yes. "The Earth is round" is an assertion.

An assertion is a declarative statement that claims something is true or false. The sentence "The Earth is round" makes a claim about the Earth and can be evaluated for truth, so it qualifies as an assertion.

For comparison:

Y - Assertion: "The Earth is round."
N - Question: "Is the Earth round?"
N - Command: "Believe that the Earth is round."
N - Exclamation: "What a round Earth!"

So, grammatically and philosophically, "The Earth is round" is an assertion because it states a proposition that can be true or false.

Q: In this case, I think it would be fair to say that it is a well-supported assertion. If there is a lot of support for the claim does it cease to be an assertion?

A: No. In most philosophical and logical usages, the degree of support for a claim is independent of whether it is an assertion.

An assertion is an act of putting forward a proposition as true. Whether the proposition is:

poorly supported,
moderately supported,
overwhelmingly supported, or
even known with near certainty,

it is still an assertion when someone states it.

For example:

"The Earth is round." → assertion, very well supported.
"The Earth orbits the Sun." → assertion, very well supported.
"There is life on Europa." → assertion, currently much less supported.

All three are assertions because they are statements offered as true.

Sometimes people use "assertion" colloquially to imply "a claim lacking evidence" or "just an unsupported statement." That's a common rhetorical use, but it differs from the technical meaning in logic and philosophy. In the technical sense, evidence does not change a proposition from being an assertion into something else.

You might say:

"The Earth is round" is an assertion, and a very well-supported one.

or

"The Earth is round" is an assertion whose truth is established by extensive evidence.

The support affects the justification of the assertion, not its status as an assertion.

It's amazing to me that you can't understand this. It seems you are unable reason abstractly. For you the word "assertion" has an negative connotation and therefore in your mind anything you think is true cannot be an "assertion."

You used the word assertion, because of its association with a lack of evidence. You do that, to suggest I am the one who lacks evidence and you do that, to deflect from your complete lack of evidence.

You make all sorts of baseless accusations, such as ignoring what I do not ignore and sweeping errors under the rug, when instead I accept and explain them.

Then, you ignore my point that 100% of the witnesses who worked inside the death camps describe the same process, of mass arrivals, undressing, theft of the property, gassing and mass graves/cremations. That is a high level of consistency you cannot deal with. So, you ignore it and nit-pick over variances in details, such as how many were cremated each day, or the size of the graves, as if somehow, every witness should have said the same thing!

[Nessie]

It's amazing to me that you can't understand this. It seems you are unable reason abstractly. For you the word "assertion" has an negative connotation and therefore in your mind anything you think is true cannot be an "assertion."

This is kinda like when he didn’t understand the concept of falsification. And because the first syllable contains “fals(e)” he just assumed falsification = le bad. There was a whole thread about it:

viewtopic.php?p=21456#p21456

Very childlike, very low IQ.

I said "the empirical evidence at the camps matches witness descriptions of what took place".

Archie replied, "This is merely an assertion. The only support you have for this is more unsupported assertions."

He is using the word assertion, because of its definition, "An assertion is a strong, confident statement or declaration that someone believes is true, often made without immediate proof or evidence". The context is he is suggesting I lack evidence. He further clarifies that by claiming;

"When we point out all the things that DON'T match you say we can just ignore all the stuff that doesn't match."

I have challenged Archie on that, by pointing out 100% of the witness at the death camps describe the same process, or part of the overall process. I gave him examples of evidence to support the witnesses, such as buried cremated remains and the remains of buildings where they say gas chambers were located. I could have gone on and point to documents corroborating mass arrivals, or personal items and documents corroborating the theft of property.

Archie knows I am right, so he deflects with a lecture on the definitions of assertion. Your only contribution is to abuse and claim I did not understand falsification, by linking to a thread where I explain it and how it would work in the context of historical investigation.

[Archie]

Nessie, you were wrong when you said "The Earth is round" is not an assertion. And you still refuse to admit it.

Contrary to what he claims, Nessie absolutely does sweep blunders under the rug. Anyone who reads those threads I linked can see that he will excuse ANY error in a testimony he wants to believe in. His logic reminds me of that one joke from Anchorman. "60% of the time, it works 100% of the time." That's exactly how Nessie scores his "evidence." He pretends the stuff that doesn't fit isn't there and then he declares that what remains is spot on. Usually all that remains is nothing more than a general outline of the story, which they could have easily heard from someone else.

[Nessie]

Nessie, you were wrong when you said "The Earth is round" is not an assertion. And you still refuse to admit it.

I am correct about the way you used the word, to suggest I lack evidence.

Contrary to what he claims, Nessie absolutely does sweep blunders under the rug. Anyone who reads those threads I linked can see that he will excuse ANY error in a testimony he wants to believe in.

Anyone who reads them will see that explain witness "blunders" with reference to the scientific studies of memory, recall and estimations.

His logic reminds me of that one joke from Anchorman. "60% of the time, it works 100% of the time." That's exactly how Nessie scores his "evidence." He pretends the stuff that doesn't fit isn't there and then he declares that what remains is spot on. Usually all that remains is nothing more than a general outline of the story, which they could have easily heard from someone else.

That is an assertion, whereby you make "a confident and positive declaration or statement of something a person strongly believes is true, often presented without immediate proof or complete evidence".

You are still dodging supporting your claim of "we point out all the things that DON'T match", with a witness who worked inside a death camp, who describes a process that differs from transports, selection, undressing, theft of property, gassing and mass graves and/or cremations.

[Keen]

This is kinda like when he didn’t understand the concept of falsification.

There are so many concepts that the retard doesn't understand that it would be difficult to list them all

Very childlike, very low IQ.

Very true.

And the same can be said about all the HC cult members.

[Keen]

100% of the witnesses who worked inside the death camps describe the same process, of mass arrivals, undressing, theft of the property, gassing and mass graves/cremations. That is a high level of consistency you cannot deal with. So, you ignore it and nit-pick over variances in details, such as how many were cremated each day, or the size of the graves, as if somehow, every witness should have said the same thing!

Every fraudulently alleged "eyewitness" has been proven to be a liar. (Just like you have.)

If the physical evidence for an alleged crime that - HAS TO EXIST - for the crime to have

actually happened - DOES NOT EXIST - then the alleged crime obviously - DID NOT HAPPEN.

Ergo: The orthodox “pure extermination center” story is - A PROVEN, NONSENSICAL BIG-LIE.

[Keen]

You are still dodging supporting your claim of "we point out all the things that DON'T match"

The fraudulent "eyewitness" claims do not match the physical evidence.

If the physical evidence for an alleged crime that - HAS TO EXIST - for the crime to have

actually happened - DOES NOT EXIST - then the alleged crime obviously - DID NOT HAPPEN.

Ergo: The orthodox “pure extermination center” story is - A PROVEN, NONSENSICAL BIG-LIE.

And speaking of dodging, when are you going to accept this challenge:

A $1,000.00 bet - can be made for each one of the 100 fraudulently alleged / insinuated - mass graves / burial / cremation pits - of Belzec, Chelmno, Ponary, Sobibor and Treblinka II - wagering that you can conclusively prove that they have been scientifically proven to actually exist and to currently contain the remains of at least 21 people. (That is less than one one thousandth of one percent of the alleged mass murder.)

I, _?_, am so confident that the so-called Belzec, Chelmno, Ponary, Sobibor and Treblinka II “holocausts within the holocaust” happened as alleged in orthodox historiography, and that the archaeological / forensic / geophysical / scientific investigations of these five sites were legitimate, and that the alleged “huge mass grave discoveries” were conclusively validated; that I am willing to bet Greg Gerdes $1,000.00 that I can definitively prove - in a publicized debate and in a U.S. civil court - that there is a preponderance of conclusively documented and substantiated archaeological / forensic / geophysical / scientific evidence which proves, with absolute certainty, that _?_ grave number _?_ currently contains the remains of - NO LESS THAN _?_ people. Furthermore, I agree that if I refuse to answer any question or get caught lying during our debate or while in court - I lose the bet / case right then and there.

https://thisisaboutscience.com/

What are you waiting for?

Why are you so afraid of Mr. Gerdes?

[Keen]

nessie:

There is a ton of physical, archaeological, witness, documentary and circumstantial evidence for mass killings and burials at TII.

viewtopic.php?p=6030#p6030

A TON!



The mentally ill pathological liar cannot show us so-much-as a shoebox full of human remains, and yet he alleges "a ton"!

nessie:

You cannot find any evidence from any source that the hundreds of thousands who arrived at TII, then left.

Liar:

If the physical evidence for an alleged crime that - HAS TO EXIST - for the crime to have

actually happened - DOES NOT EXIST - then the alleged crime obviously - DID NOT HAPPEN.

Ergo: The orthodox “pure extermination center” story is - A PROVEN, NONSENSICAL BIG-LIE.

nessie:

Just because you cannot see how c850,000 would fit, does not therefore mean there are no mass graves.

Decomposition and leaking of fluids, as the corpses are compressed under pressure, is how they fit.

There is evidence to prove at least [7000,000] buried at the camp.

[Nessie]

Callafangers;

viewtopic.php?p=26180#p26180

just how often were non-Jewish partisans counted within the 'Jews' bucket?

For example, if a German unit captures 500 partisans led by 20 or so Jews, would they not be heavily-incentivized (and/or assuming enough) to claim the entire group as 'Jews'?

How often did this happen?

I say it happened a lot, which would explain why some of the execution numbers provided by the Einsatzgruppen were over inflated. Himmler had written a note in 1941, that stated "Jewish Question | To Be Exterminated as Partisans". In 1942 he sent a report to Hitler that stated 363,211 Jews had been executed over a 4 month period. The report also listed bandits and helpers, but we cannot be sure how many of them were Jewish, or how many of those reported as Jews, were Jews. What we also know, from various reports, is that the aim was to rid the whole of Eastern Europe of Jews and make it "Juden-frei".

It is so odd that so-called revisionists are so accepting of Jews being mass executed as partisans by shooting in Eastern Europe, but then they refuse to believe that the Nazis would switch to using gas and that for some unknown reason, they would repopulate the East with Jews from elsewhere in Europe.

[Keen]

It is so odd that so-called revisionists are so accepting of jews being mass executed as partisans by shooting in Eastern Europe

The Ukrainian “holocaust by bullets” Addendum

Are 1.5 million jews really buried in the 800 “forensically proven” Ukrainian mass graves?

* * * * *

“Throughout my research for this project, I was often told that the camps, the ghettos, the synagogues, and the stones of the Jewish cemeteries had disappeared, and that nothing remained. Eventually, I no longer paid any attention to these claims... I had made up my mind to find the mass graves... I knew that I had to carry on looking, and I knew that I would find what I was looking for... It became obvious that my research could no longer be reduced to an empirical approach. I had to “professionalize” it... there was a protocol to be implemented on the ground... Using GPS, we marked down the coordinates of the mass graves... Then we carried out a ballistic inquiry... Back in Busk... so that no one could object that we didn't have material proof... The excavations were organized with the help of archaeologists... we wanted to obtain scientific results as precise as possible in terms of the identity of the victims, their number, and the cause of death... We were able to establish whether it was a man, a woman, or a child and above all the cause of death. The impact of the bullets and the position of the bodies showed that they had all been shot... Once the archaeological study was finished, we had to cover these graves...”

Patrick Desbois, author of - THE HOLOCAUST BY BULLETS - a priest's journey to uncover the truth behind the murder of 1.5 million jews

“Before Treblinka, Sobibor, Belzec... over 1.5 million [jews] had already been murdered... and the locations of the mass graves where they lay remained unknown and unmarked... until the extraordinary work of Father Desbois opened a way forward... to locate the mass graves of the victims in Ukraine and... We can now know the whole truth... Through a magical marriage of the evidence... Desbois has added astonishing ballistic and forensic findings as well - we are finally able to see clearly. The first 1.5 million victims of the holocaust did not “disappear” ...Desbois has found the mass graves where the victims lie...”

Paul Shapiro (director, center for advanced holocaust studies, USHMM) author of the forward to - THE HOLOCAUST BY BULLETS

* * * * *

Additionally, and independent of any other reward offered on this website, a reward of $50.00 will be remitted for each one of the alleged - 800 MASS GRAVES - ( https://www.rogerejosephprize.org/2008 ) - (the explicitly alleged number claimed to have been “uncovered” by the date of - 05 / 04 / 2008) that is conclusively proven to actually exist and to currently contain the remains of - at least one gunshot victim. Rules are essentially the same as those for the other challenges on this site. Contact Greg Gerdes for details.

FYI: Here is but one exposé that quashes these shameless Ukrainian mass grave lies and exposes Patrick Desbois’ transparent - FORENSIC FRAUD. ( https://web.archive.org/web/20230217010 ... m/8/1/4030 )

https://thisisaboutscience.com/

What are you waiting for nessie?

What are you so afraid of?

[borjastick]

It is not a matter of liking or disliking the situation about partisan executions. It was legal then and it was done. Jews are very good at telling people how they formed groups of partisans to fight the Germans and I have no issue with that but you cannot have it both ways. If you were a partisan in that conflict you were fair game and would almost certainly be executed if caught. But they then scream blue bloody murder as if they are the victims again. They were not 'victims' they were executed legally and if I dislike road side shootings of young men and women who stood up against the German army that is just tough.

I used to go to France a lot on holiday and found many a road side marker or cross. I thought they were just signs of adoration to Christ but when I asked a local mayor once he showed me pictures of the young men prior to them attacking a column of Germans and told me the cross was to mark where they were executed. Unpleasant yes but it was the thing then.