Stubble wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2025 10:46 pm
Nessie wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2025 8:45 pm
Stubble wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2025 6:56 pm
No idea, I need the corresponding revised prints to look at fan placement. In my professional opinion, these corpse cellars referred to generally as lk#1 situated at Kremas II and III are not suitable for such an application. I'm not so sure where the fans were placed would change that, but, I suppose it
could.
What evidential value does your professional opinion have? Do you think that you, not believing the ventilation system would work, prove the gas chambers did not exist? Yes or no.
I'm going to start using your retort here when you talk about witnesses.
No, my opinion alone does not prove anything. My opinion also does not exist in a vacuum. I am also not alone in this opinion.
Just because others agree with your opinion, does not then make that opinion proof. Opinion on technical feasibility is not evidence, when what is being discussed is technically feasible. A ventilation system inside the Kremas is technically feasible. That it likely did not work as well as the designer thought it should, since witnesses report having to wear gas masks to enter the chambers and in your opinion it did not have the power to properly vent the chambers, is part of the narrative. It explains how the evidence fits and what happened. It does not disprove gassings.
Does your opinion about the eyewitnesses prove that it is physically possible for the gassing process to have been carried out as described?
I do not use opinion, I use evidence. The test I use, which is the test historians, journalists and the courts commonly use, is corroboration. I put my opinion on the witness aside and look to see if that witness is corroborated. That is a fair and unbiased test, making it more accurate than your opinion driven assessment of the witnesses.
Because the facts are, even if homicidal gassings occurred in the corpse cellar, it would be physically impossible for them to have been carried out as stated in the official narrative. Point blank.
https://effectiviology.com/argument-from-incredulity/
"The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone concludes that since they can’t believe something is true, then it must be false, and vice versa...This way of thinking is fallacious, since someone’s inability to believe that something could be true, does not mean that it must be false...From a formal perspective, the basic structure of an argument from incredulity can be described as follows:
Premise 1: I can’t explain or imagine how proposition X can be true.
Premise 2: if I can’t explain or imagine how a certain proposition could be true, then it must be false.
Conclusions: proposition X is false."
People could have been gassed in Kremas II and III in their corpse storage 1 basements, sure. Not 2,000 or 3,000 at a time, not in a period of under an hour, and not without a 24 hour ventilation afterward.
Exactly, people could have been gassed in the Kremas, that basic claim is not physically impossible. Just because you cannot work out, from the details we have, how it could have worked, does not therefore mean gassings is false.