Convergance of evidence.

[TlsMS93]

That is no more a declaration of war, than a Cardinal from the Vatican, can declare war on behalf of all Roman Catholics.

If the leader of an international organization declares this and knowing that this organization has capillarity in governments, finances and the media, what do I do with these people that they represent? Do I leave them alone? What do the Japanese and Germans on American soil have to do with the governments in their countries of origin?

[Nessie]

That is no more a declaration of war, than a Cardinal from the Vatican, can declare war on behalf of all Roman Catholics.

If the leader of an international organization declares this and knowing that this organization has capillarity in governments, finances and the media, what do I do with these people that they represent? Do I leave them alone? What do the Japanese and Germans on American soil have to do with the governments in their countries of origin?

You don't suggest the Jews declared war on Germany, as if Jews are one people and the person declaring war has any authority to do so.

I don't know what religion you are, or maybe you are atheist, but if a leading light of that religion, or atheism, declared war on a country, would you consider that to be legitimate and on your behalf?

[HansHill]

You don't suggest the Jews declared war on Germany, as if Jews are one people and the person declaring war has any authority to do so.

I don't know what religion you are, or maybe you are atheist, but if a leading light of that religion, or atheism, declared war on a country, would you consider that to be legitimate and on your behalf?

For the last time, it wasn't a literal war. This was an organised and co-ordinated strategic set of boycotts, protests and other forms of agitation against the German Nation. From the link i sent you:

"German imports to the US were reduced by nearly a quarter compared with the prior year, and the impact was weighing heavily on the regime."

So yes, it was extremely "legitimate", assuming by "legitimate" you mean "real".

[TlsMS93]

You don't suggest the Jews declared war on Germany, as if Jews are one people and the person declaring war has any authority to do so.

I don't know what religion you are, or maybe you are atheist, but if a leading light of that religion, or atheism, declared war on a country, would you consider that to be legitimate and on your behalf?

Now, are Jews a religion? You use these definitions well when it benefits you.

In the case of being a religion, it is worse since in theory, those who follow a religion are flesh and bones with what it professes, so if an organization like the ZWO declares Germany an enemy and deploys human and material resources against it, it is assumed that European Jews think body and soul with it.

Are you underestimating the capacity of these Jewish organizations to mobilize finances, propaganda and human resources for the Allied war effort?

Outside of Germany, the largest Nazi party was in Brazil and they refrained from interfering in the electoral process while they were legal, but my government did not stop persecuting them, many do not even know that concentration camps for Germans and Japanese were once operated here.

Now, a statement by someone as high-ranking as Chaim Weizamnn should go unnoticed by Germany at what cost?

[Nessie]

A newspaper headline has to be the weakest form of evidence out there. There were plenty of headlines about Nazi atrocities and the Holocaust, are they to be accepted as evidence as to what happened?

Not understanding evidencing, corroboration or convergence is why some people fall for the Holocaust denial hoax.

[Archie]

A newspaper headline has to be the weakest form of evidence out there. There were plenty of headlines about Nazi atrocities and the Holocaust, are they to be accepted as evidence as to what happened?

Not understanding evidencing, corroboration or convergence is why some people fall for the Holocaust denial hoax.

Facepalm

Are you suggesting this story was fake? If so, you are a moron. If not, why are you suggesting it is? Stop wasting everyone’s time with your idiocy.

[Nessie]

A newspaper headline has to be the weakest form of evidence out there. There were plenty of headlines about Nazi atrocities and the Holocaust, are they to be accepted as evidence as to what happened?

Not understanding evidencing, corroboration or convergence is why some people fall for the Holocaust denial hoax.

Facepalm

Are you suggesting this story was fake? If so, you are a moron. If not, why are you suggesting it is? Stop wasting everyone’s time with your idiocy.

I said that a newspaper headline is a very weak form of evidence. I emphasised that with a rhetorical question, where I knew that the answer would be, no. The point was to show how different forms of evidence has different strengths, which I am sure you know. Hearsay, is weak. Forensics are strong.

Convergence of evidence usually mixes the two, but it should conclude with the strongest evidence. The newspaper headline is very weak evidence that comes at the very start of the Nazis coming to power, with no indication yet, war would eventually break out. It is weak circumstantial evidence, whereby German Jews were being repressed and attacked by the Nazis, and some American Jews wanted a boycott. It is very early evidence of motive and opportunity, that will eventually converge with further actions by the Nazis against the Jews, to prove motive and opportunity for the criminal act of mass murder.

[Archie]

A newspaper headline has to be the weakest form of evidence out there. There were plenty of headlines about Nazi atrocities and the Holocaust, are they to be accepted as evidence as to what happened?

Not understanding evidencing, corroboration or convergence is why some people fall for the Holocaust denial hoax.

Facepalm

Are you suggesting this story was fake? If so, you are a moron. If not, why are you suggesting it is? Stop wasting everyone’s time with your idiocy.

I said that a newspaper headline is a very weak form of evidence. I emphasised that with a rhetorical question, where I knew that the answer would be, no. The point was to show how different forms of evidence has different strengths, which I am sure you know. Hearsay, is weak. Forensics are strong.

Convergence of evidence usually mixes the two, but it should conclude with the strongest evidence. The newspaper headline is very weak evidence that comes at the very start of the Nazis coming to power, with no indication yet, war would eventually break out. It is weak circumstantial evidence, whereby German Jews were being repressed and attacked by the Nazis, and some American Jews wanted a boycott. It is very early evidence of motive and opportunity, that will eventually converge with further actions by the Nazis against the Jews, to prove motive and opportunity for the criminal act of mass murder.

In this case, it’s not weak. It’s an article about something that is extremely well attested. If you had even basic textbook level knowledge of the Third Reich you would know about the boycott and you would not be challenging a reference to it simply because it’s in a newspaper.

[Nessie]

Facepalm

Are you suggesting this story was fake? If so, you are a moron. If not, why are you suggesting it is? Stop wasting everyone’s time with your idiocy.

I said that a newspaper headline is a very weak form of evidence. I emphasised that with a rhetorical question, where I knew that the answer would be, no. The point was to show how different forms of evidence has different strengths, which I am sure you know. Hearsay, is weak. Forensics are strong.

Convergence of evidence usually mixes the two, but it should conclude with the strongest evidence. The newspaper headline is very weak evidence that comes at the very start of the Nazis coming to power, with no indication yet, war would eventually break out. It is weak circumstantial evidence, whereby German Jews were being repressed and attacked by the Nazis, and some American Jews wanted a boycott. It is very early evidence of motive and opportunity, that will eventually converge with further actions by the Nazis against the Jews, to prove motive and opportunity for the criminal act of mass murder.

In this case, it’s not weak. It’s an article about something that is extremely well attested. If you had even basic textbook level knowledge of the Third Reich you would know about the boycott and you would not be challenging a reference to it simply because it’s in a newspaper.

Brilliant, so you do know about and use the convergence of evidence.

You know that there is evidence that corroborates and converges to prove that Jews from outwith Germany, primarily the USA, had called for an international boycott of Nazi Germany, because of its treatment of Jewish Germans.

The Daily Express 1933 newspaper headline, on its own, is weak evidence. It needs to be evidenced, preferably from corroborating sources, to prove that the claim it has made is correct. The same applies to the earliest news reports of mass murder by the Nazis, that started in 1941, from the Polish intelligence service to the Government in Exile in London. Like the Daily Express, their claims need to be checked and verified and the most accurate way to do that is, corroborating, converging evidence. Eyewitnesses, documents and circumstantial evidence converge to prove that some Jewish organisations and people boycotted Nazi Germany. It is then proven that the headline is factually incorrect, it should read that Judea declares a boycott, not war. It is a clickbait headline.

Why do you use convergence of evidence for the Daily Express headline, but not for the Polish Intelligence reports, on what was happening to Jews under Nazi rule?

[Nazgul]

Why do you use convergence of evidence for the Daily Express headline, but not for the Polish Intelligence reports, on what was happening to Jews under Nazi rule?

Big difference between Intelligence reports and propaganda. You accept the validity of Polish Intelligence but reject the report by General Stefan Paweł Rowecki (Polish Home Army) that was planning an attack on the Treblinka II facility at Czerwony Bor, the origin of the camp "Sobi-bor". Jews not knowing the language would have no idea the pronounciation of the name.

[Nessie]

Why do you use convergence of evidence for the Daily Express headline, but not for the Polish Intelligence reports, on what was happening to Jews under Nazi rule?

Big difference between Intelligence reports and propaganda. You accept the validity of Polish Intelligence but reject the report by General Stefan Paweł Rowecki (Polish Home Army) that was planning an attack on the Treblinka II facility at Czerwony Bor, the origin of the camp "Sobi-bor". Jews not knowing the language would have no idea the pronounciation of the name.

I accept what is evidenced to have happened, using corroboration and convergence. I only accept that validity of Polish Intelligence reports, AFTER there is sufficient corroborating evidence to prove the claim made.

I do not reject Rowecki organised Polish resistance and attacks. I do reject, due to a lack of evidence, that TII was located at Czerwony Bor and was the origin of Sobibor. TII, the AR camp is evidenced to be located between the Treblinka rail station and TI labour camp. Sobibor has no connection with Czerwony Bor, as they are nearly 300km apart.

[Nazgul]

I accept what is evidenced to have happened, using corroboration and convergence. I only accept that validity of Polish Intelligence reports, AFTER there is sufficient corroborating evidence to prove the claim made.

How are you qualified to assess intelligence reports, you walked the beat and certainly no James Bond.?

I do not reject Rowecki organised Polish resistance and attacks. I do reject, due to a lack of evidence, that TII was located at Czerwony Bor and was the origin of Sobibor. TII, the AR camp is evidenced to be located between the Treblinka rail station and TI labour camp. Sobibor has no connection with Czerwony Bor, as they are nearly 300km apart.

You can reject what you like, no one gives a rats rectum what you think. A competent general like Rowecki would not mistake the intelligence he got on a camp site he was going to attack. In fact Czerwony bor fits in with the testimony of a camp within a forest, that is certainly not the current TII, a site surrounded by a few trees, hardly arboreal. It is the site of a prison now, and a perfect place for the Warsaw uprising Jews to have been shot. I doubt if a Dutch person could distinguished Czerwony-bor and Sobibor. Type the two names into an english to polish translater, click on "listen" they are so close.

[HansHill]

Why do you use convergence of evidence for the Daily Express headline, but not for the Polish Intelligence reports, on what was happening to Jews under Nazi rule?

Keep digging Nessie, how many shovels are you using now This is the most ludicrous of your rants I have seen yet

German exports to USA dropped by one quarter year on year, which converges with the article, that is a tangible impact on the German economy that can be measured and analysed, independently of the Daily Mail article. If exports increased, or otherwise remained uniform, we might have a convergence problem, the kinds of problems Holocaust Exterminationist have where their wild claims don't converge with anything.

This has to be a wind up, is today still April Fools?

[Nessie]

I accept what is evidenced to have happened, using corroboration and convergence. I only accept that validity of Polish Intelligence reports, AFTER there is sufficient corroborating evidence to prove the claim made.

How are you qualified to assess intelligence reports, you walked the beat and certainly no James Bond.?

Anyone with understanding of evidence and corroboration can assess the early reports about the AR camps. Reports that people were steamed to death are wrong, reports they were gassed to death are correct. That was established once corroborating eyewitness evidence was obtained.

I do not reject Rowecki organised Polish resistance and attacks. I do reject, due to a lack of evidence, that TII was located at Czerwony Bor and was the origin of Sobibor. TII, the AR camp is evidenced to be located between the Treblinka rail station and TI labour camp. Sobibor has no connection with Czerwony Bor, as they are nearly 300km apart.

You can reject what you like, no one gives a rats rectum what you think. A competent general like Rowecki would not mistake the intelligence he got on a camp site he was going to attack. In fact Czerwony bor fits in with the testimony of a camp within a forest, that is certainly not the current TII, a site surrounded by a few trees, hardly arboreal. It is the site of a prison now, and a perfect place for the Warsaw uprising Jews to have been shot. I doubt if a Dutch person could distinguished Czerwony-bor and Sobibor. Type the two names into an english to polish translater, click on "listen" they are so close.

The TII AR camp is the camp between the station and TI labour camp. It was not the subject of any attack.

[Nessie]

Why do you use convergence of evidence for the Daily Express headline, but not for the Polish Intelligence reports, on what was happening to Jews under Nazi rule?

Keep digging Nessie, how many shovels are you using now This is the most ludicrous of your rants I have seen yet

German exports to USA dropped by one quarter year on year, which converges with the article, that is a tangible impact on the German economy that can be measured and analysed, independently of the Daily Mail article. If exports increased, or otherwise remained uniform, we might have a convergence problem, the kinds of problems Holocaust Exterminationist have where their wild claims don't converge with anything.

This has to be a wind up, is today still April Fools?

Exactly, evidence independent of the Daily Express article, corroborates and converges to prove there was a boycott and the impact it had. Archie will use convergence of evidence when it suits him to. I would encourage him to do the same for the Holocaust. Gather evidence from witnesses, documents, forensics etc and establish what happened.