Page 1 of 1

Nessie's hierarchy of evidence, standard of proof and dodged questions

Posted: Thu May 01, 2025 4:19 pm
by Keen
Recently, Nessie has made the following statements on this forum:
I assert the proposition of mass murders is true, because of the evidence to prove it is true... The reason why the mass murder of millions of Jews had been settled as fact, is because of the evidence... You have cherry picked the weakest form of evidence of all... What is the evidential value... There is indeed a hierarchy of evidence.
So Nessie is claiming that there are different forms of evidence, some weaker than others, and these varying forms of evidence can be aranged in a hierarchy depending on their strength or weakness, with stronger forms having more evidential value than weaker forms.
hierarchy:

a system in which people or things are arranged according to their importance
So Nessie, show us the hierarchy of evidence that you use in determining what kind of evidence has more evidential value than another.

Nessie also steadfastly refuses to state what standard of proof he is alleging his "evidence" has "proven."
Different Standards of Proof

A standard of proof refers to the duty of the person responsible for proving the case. There are different standards of proof in different circumstances. The three primary standards of proof are proof beyond a reasonable doubt, preponderance of the evidence and clear and convincing evidence.

Preponderance of the Evidence

This is the lowest standard of proof. It is used primarily in civil proceedings. This standard means that it is more likely than not that the facts are as that which one of the parties claim. In civil cases, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that all of the legal elements were present in the given case. When deciding whether to rule on behalf of the plaintiff or the defendant, the jury weighs each piece of evidence. Jury instructions often state that the jury can use their own judgment in determining the credibility of each piece of evidence and how much weight to assign to each piece of evidence.

Clear and Convincing Evidence

This standard is a step up from the preponderance of the evidence standard. This standard requires that the evidence show that it is highly probable or probably certain that the thing alleged has occurred. This standard may apply to civil cases or some aspects of criminal cases.

Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt refers to the standard of proof in criminal prosecutions. The prosecutor has the duty to convince the jury by proof beyond a reasonable doubt of each and every element of the crime before a jury should convict a defendant. Because a person’s freedom is on the line, the highest standard of proof is used. The United States Supreme Court has specifically stated that it is much worse to convict an innocent person than to allow a guilty one to go free. This standard of proof is specifically required by the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment to the federal United States Constiution.
So Nessie:

VI - Is it - True. - or - False. - that; Blacks Law Dictionary defines - Burden of Proof - as: “The necessity or duty of affirmatively proving a fact or facts in dispute on an issue raised between the parties in a cause.” - ??

VII - Is it - True. - or - False. - that; The maxims of law found in Bouvier's Law Dictionary include: “The claimant is always bound to prove: the burden of proof lies on him.” - and - “The burden of the proof lies upon him who affirms, not he who denies.” - ??

Re: Nessie's hierarchy of evidence and standard of proof

Posted: Thu May 01, 2025 4:34 pm
by Keen
Nessie, have you ever stated that:
Huge pits are proven
at Treblinka II?

Re: Nessie's hierarchy of evidence and standard of proof

Posted: Fri May 02, 2025 2:32 pm
by Archie
Come on, Nessie. Let's see you strut your stuff. You and Keen are a match made in heaven.

Re: Nessie's hierarchy of evidence and standard of proof

Posted: Fri May 02, 2025 11:30 pm
by Keen
Archie wrote: Fri May 02, 2025 2:32 pm Come on, Nessie. Let's see you strut your stuff. You and Keen are a match made in heaven.
It appears that Nessie has chosen to "strut his stuff" by posting a new, provocative thread under a new name rather than try to defend his myriad unsubstantiated allegations made as "Nessie."

Is anyone really surprised that he would rather try to deflect attention away from his dodging than face a challenge head on?

Re: Nessie's hierarchy of evidence and standard of proof

Posted: Sat May 03, 2025 12:24 am
by Archie
Keen wrote: Fri May 02, 2025 11:30 pm
Archie wrote: Fri May 02, 2025 2:32 pm Come on, Nessie. Let's see you strut your stuff. You and Keen are a match made in heaven.
It appears that Nessie has chosen to "strut his stuff" by posting a new, provocative thread under a new name rather than try to defend his myriad unsubstantiated allegations made as "Nessie."

Is anyone really surprised that he would rather try to deflect attention away from his dodging than face a challenge head on?
I am confident that ConfusedJew and Nessie are different people.

Re: Nessie's hierarchy of evidence and standard of proof

Posted: Sat May 03, 2025 12:37 am
by Stubble
Archie wrote: Sat May 03, 2025 12:24 am
Keen wrote: Fri May 02, 2025 11:30 pm
Archie wrote: Fri May 02, 2025 2:32 pm Come on, Nessie. Let's see you strut your stuff. You and Keen are a match made in heaven.
It appears that Nessie has chosen to "strut his stuff" by posting a new, provocative thread under a new name rather than try to defend his myriad unsubstantiated allegations made as "Nessie."

Is anyone really surprised that he would rather try to deflect attention away from his dodging than face a challenge head on?
I am confident that ConfusedJew and Nessie are different people.
Very different people. 100%

Re: Nessie's hierarchy of evidence and standard of proof

Posted: Sat May 03, 2025 1:16 am
by Keen
So ConfusedJew is a proxy. Same oh so convenient timing and result.

Questions that Nessie cravenly refuses to answer

Posted: Sat May 03, 2025 5:00 pm
by Keen
Since Nessie is allowed to argue on a debate forum rather than engaging in actual debate by cravenly refusing to defend his positions and answer simple questions, I thought it would be telling to post the numerous questions he is running away from in a separate thread.

This should give people a clear understanding of the utter lack of courage and integrity, exemplified by Nessie, of the average exterminationist / true believer. The question to ask yourself is: Why would anyone who alleges that the orthodox version of the holohoax has been proven, yet be unable to and/or unwilling to answer such simple yet important questions?
*6 - Is it - True. - or - False. - that; The alleged Auschwitz - “ASH POND” - / - BURIAL SITE - has never been archeologically / forensically / scientifically proven to contain so-much-as 1 / 100 of 1 percent of - THIS DEATH TOLL - figure - https://www.islam-radio.net/islam/engli ... educed.gif - ??
Nessie, are you suggesting that one piece of posited evidence may have more evidential value than another?
Nessie,

XIV - Is it - True. - or False. - that; It is common for juries in the U.S. to be given instructions that include some form of the following: “If you decide that a witness has deliberately testified untruthfully about something important, you may choose not to believe anything that witness said.” - ??
Nessie, in this "convergence of evidence" method you use to allege that the jewish holocaust of WW II has been proven, do some forms of evidence have more evidential value than others?
Nessie, concerning the mass graves graves at Belzec, Chelmno, Sobibor and Treblinka II; you speak as if it is a fact that they exist. Are you alleging that these mass graves have been irrefutably proven to exist and currently contain human remains - Yes. - or - No. - ??

If your answer is - Yes. - do you have the courage and integrity to defend that allegation in a seperate thread - Yes. - or - No. - ??
Speaking of courts Nessie; Are there different levels of proof / proven - Yes. - or - No. ??

Nessie, you claim that something can be "proven" by a conversion of evidence. Can something be disproven by a lack of evidence?
Nessie, after the Nuremberg trials, was it considered a "settled fact" that 4 million jews were murdered at Auschwitz?

Nessie, shortly after the Nuremberg trials, could one have "proven" the "fact" that 4 million jews had been murdered at Auschwitz using the "conversion of evidence" method?

Nessie, does the "conversion of evidence" method prove things with 100% certainty 100% of the time - Yes. - or - No. - ??
Oh, so there are different "forms" of evidence, and some forms of evidence are weaker than others. Thanks for making that distinction. List all forms of evidence from weakest to strongest.
Nessie wrote:

There is indeed a hierarchy of evidence
Nessie, list this hierachy of evidence from weakest to strongest.
TBC

Re: Questions that Nessie cravenly refuses to answer

Posted: Sat May 03, 2025 6:45 pm
by HansHill
:lol:

While I must say this is very humourous, Keen I fear you are:

Image

Re: Nessie's hierarchy of evidence and standard of proof

Posted: Sat May 03, 2025 9:36 pm
by Archie
Keen, I have merged your most recent thread with this one. We are all well aware of the issues with Nessie. You don't need to make a new Nessie "call out" thread every day just because he's ignoring you.

Re: Nessie's hierarchy of evidence and standard of proof

Posted: Sat May 03, 2025 9:46 pm
by Keen
Archie wrote: Sat May 03, 2025 9:36 pm Keen, I have merged your most recent thread with this one. We are all well aware of the issues with Nessie. You don't need to make a new Nessie "call out" thread every day just because he's ignoring you.
Yeah, that makes sense. I changed the title of the thread to reflect the change. Thanks.

I would like to add, I don't believe Nessie is ignoring me per se. More accurately, he's cravenly dodging important and relevent questions that prove what a pathetic liar and coward he is and how vacuous his allegation that the holocaust has been "proven" by the sophistic "convergence of evidence" method is. (Especially when he knows for a fact that the "convergence of the lack of physical evidence" method :D has proven that the "huge mass grave" stories are lies that only a child could believe.)

Re: Nessie's hierarchy of evidence and standard of proof

Posted: Sun May 04, 2025 1:45 am
by Keen
Archie wrote: Fri May 02, 2025 2:32 pm Come on, Nessie. Let's see you strut your stuff. You and Keen are a match made in heaven.
Bump.