|
June 16th, 2008 | #81 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,129
|
Roberta:
" - "When we went around the memorial we found slots in the area," we say when bidding farewell to the director. "Judging by the trees growing inside them they must be several dozen years old. Are these pits from the diggings?" – "No ... those are from artillery shells. In 1944 the front line was here for some weeks." OK Roberta, let's see some more of your photo analysis skills. Show us where those Soviet artillery shells landed in Treblinka on this aerial photo here: http://www.death-camps.org/treblinka/pic/bmap8.jpg |
June 16th, 2008 | #82 | |||||
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,046
|
Quote:
Quote:
Here is a demonstration of how this logic works and why you are right - Not all eye witness testimony is true, so all the eye witnesses make sure to cover a large range of different possibilities. This way when something faulty is pointed out you cherry pick the story that is more so desirable and sensible while leaving the bad points out. Since eye witness is imperfect you can say that the rest is merely a mistake but what is important to you is not. In that sense it's possible to prove anything because the standards of proof are liquid, you can take many many stories and then start cutting it apart and making a Frankenstein of your own. Principally it's not hard to prove anything because it's all an if and if it's even a slight possibility then there is some way to prove it since you have a large tent of stories. When you combine these stories you get nonsense, when you start doing surgery it makes sense and to top it off - the important thing is that all the different observers agreed so it's alright to assume things and to pick out what you want to pick out. I can keep pointing out flaws all day but these flaws have all been pointed out before and thus have a back up story to them. The only way for me to observe this event is to use forensic evidence of which there is none. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
June 17th, 2008 | #83 | ||||||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||||||||
June 17th, 2008 | #85 | |||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Documentary and eyewitness evidence Gerdes prefers to leave out of the discussion. Not because he can show any rules or standards of evidence that would provide for such exclusion or because he can demonstrate the documentary and eyewitness evidence to be unreliable or inconclusive, but simply because he is afraid of it, afraid because he knows that when discussing evidence of these categories he will soon be caught in contradictions and faced with pertinent questions he cannot answer. That’s the reason for Gerdes’ trying to push through this utterly unscientific limitation of the record of evidence to just one category of evidence, as if criminal investigators and historians reconstructing events of this nature proceeded in such fallacious manner rather than looking at all evidence of all categories, eyewitness, documentary, demographic and physical evidence, that they can get hold of. The only reason. And Gerdes’ cowardly and mendacious attempt to limit the record of evidence doesn't stop there, for not only does he want to look at physical evidence alone, he also wants to limit the documentation of physical evidence he is willing to "admit" to one particular type of documentation of physical evidence, namely to photographic records, again without being able to justify this limitation. Thanks for making it so clear that you’re a charlatan and an unscientific coward, Mr. Gerdes. Quote:
1. He hasn't taken Gerdes’ cowardly and unscientific approach of limiting the record of evidence to just one category of evidence and just one type of documentation of evidence of that category; 2. He tries to make points and address his opponent’s arguments and the evidence he is shown (or at least most of it), whereas Gerdes unreasonably ignores all evidence except that which he thinks he can make a good fuss about, and essentially produces boring and unnecessary "recaps" and repetitive, irrelevant "just one" demands; 3. He seems to be more intelligent and knowledgeable than Gerdes. In other words, discussing with ps is to a certain extent challenging and interesting. Discussing with Gerdes, on the other hand, is just boring. Quote:
a) completely ignoring one category of evidence (documentary evidence, which Gerdes hasn’t said a word about), b) lamely and baselessly postulating that another category of evidence is all "fantasy" (ps at least makes more or less substantiated attempts to discredit a particular eyewitness, something that Gerdes briefly tried to do on Topix but soon gave up as he realized the shot was going out backwards), and c) unreasonably limiting the documentation of physical evidence he is willing to look at to only photographic documentation of that evidence. Quote:
He’s telling us that, as soon as one looks at all records of all categories of evidence and doesn’t artificially and unscientifically try to limit the analysis to just one type of record of just one category of evidence, "Revisionists" are confronted with arguments they can put up nothing against and questions they cannot answer, and thus shown up as the propagandistic charlatans that they are. Gerdes knows that as soon as all evidence is brought into the discussion, it soon becomes clear that the "Revisionist" emperor has no clothes. Bravo, Mr. Gerdes! Thanks for making it so clear why you are scared shitless of any records of any evidence other than photographic records of physical evidence. You get points for expressing the hollowness and fragility of your position so clearly. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||||||
June 17th, 2008 | #86 | ||||||
Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 535
|
Quote:
Quote:
You hide behind pretend values. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||
June 17th, 2008 | #87 |
Member
|
One will notice that mischlinge jew, Roberto, will write longer and longer screeds as he continues to post - it's his way of showing off, massive abuse of verbiage; along with reams of cut and paste - I'm somewhat surprised to find him on VNNF, where he will be made into mincemeat.
|
June 17th, 2008 | #88 | |||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
|
Quote:
Quote:
[quoter=Gerdes]And here is a question specifically for Roberta: In the top photo, what do you see? Please show us your photo analysis skills and point out everything you can that can be identified. You say you want the photos that you entered into evidence to stay in evidence?[/quote] As you know, I showed this photograph only in response to your infantile yelling for "just one photograph", without making a big deal out of it let alone stating that I considered it important evidence, rather than a mere illustration of what becomes apparent from other evidence. If I objected to your "striking" this or any other photo, it’s because you’re not entitled to arbitrarily "strike" any exhibit, as I pointed out several times. Quote:
The photo under http://www.infocenters.co.il/gfh_mul...5813_1_web.jpg , captioned by the Ghetto Fighters Museum as showing one of the Treblinka II mass graves, might show either one of these mass graves or a part of the Treblinka I gravel yard. Indications supporting the interpretation that it is Treblinka II are the following: a) The three objects in the foreground, which look like burned fence-posts; b) The apparent presence of vegetation on the soil, which might be the lupines that the SS planted over the mass graves; c) The mounds of upturned soil and the soil’s uneven shape, suggesting random digging as was done by robbery diggers in the Treblinka area; d) The bright spots on the soil in the foreground, especially by the objects mentioned under a), which might be parts of human skulls or bones. Indications supporting the interpretation that it is Treblinka I are the following: a) The elevation visible in the background, which seems more compatible with the Treblinka I gravel pit than with Treblinka II, also considering that there is a similar elevation on Mattogno & Graf’s Treblinka I photograph. It is therefore not clear whether this photograph shows Treblinka II or Treblinka I. As it is possible that it shows Treblinka I and the caption from the Ghetto Fighters Museum is therefore wrong, this photograph should be excluded from the record of Treblinka II physical evidence. Bravo, Mr. Gerdes! You have finally responded to one part of my questions # 1 and # 6, which I shall therefore edit to take out the link to the photograph under http://www.infocenters.co.il/gfh_mul...5813_1_web.jpg. I shall also merge questions # 1 and # 6as they refer to more or less the same subject, and in the latter, now # 5, replace the link to http://www.death-camps.org/treblinka/lasttracks.html with a link to each pertinent photograph there shown. In question # 5, former # 6, I will furthermore replace the link to the photo under http://s27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...GoldRush_3.jpg, which used to be in the online version of the Polish "Gold Rush in Treblinka" article, with a link to a better printout of this photo that I scanned in yesterday from my paper version of that article. I will furthermore add to question # 5 a bigger and better printout of the photo from the Polish militia roundup of robbery diggers, which I also scanned in yesterday from the paper version of the Polish article. The job you still have ahead of you is therefore the following: Quote:
Quote:
Come on, Gerdes, give it a try. |
|||||
June 17th, 2008 | #89 |
Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 535
|
Berty, I have an issue with your comparison of Treblinka with Pompei:
Roman chroniclers/historians were not Jews. Do you get me? |
June 17th, 2008 | #90 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
|
Quote:
If you had read my article under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...treblinka.html , you would have noticed that I made exactly this point against museum director Kopówka’s claim in that article, from which I quote (emphases added): Quote:
Quote:
You should also mind the context in which my statement was made, in post # 60 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=60: Quote:
Before I forget it: the scans from the Polish newspaper article that you made a fuss about under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...6&postcount=70 can now be viewed under http://rodohforum.yuku.com/reply/972...ml#reply-97205 . |
||||
June 17th, 2008 | #91 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
|
Quote:
a) plausibility and b) independent corroboration, as in the example I mentioned in post # 75 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...4&postcount=75 : Quote:
Quote:
Whether, and if so to what extent, the physical evidence, as documented by criminal investigators or other entities that a priori can be considered reliable (e.g. archeologists like Prof. Kola), corroborates or contradicts what becomes apparent from the eyewitness and documentary evidence. |
|||
June 17th, 2008 | #92 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
|
|
June 17th, 2008 | #93 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
|
Quote:
Quote:
And please keep on bitching, it looks good on you. |
||
June 17th, 2008 | #94 | ||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
"Jack Boot" was the handle of a Stormfront forum moderator, by the way. Ask EG. Quote:
Quote:
Ah, and who authorized you to get familiar with me? Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||||
June 17th, 2008 | #95 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
|
Not that it matters, but neither are many historians of the Nazi genocide of the Jews, and neither were the West German criminal investigators, prosecutors and judges who reconstructed the mass killings at Treblinka and the participation of individual defendants therein in the 1960s and 1970s.
|
June 17th, 2008 | #96 | ||||
Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 535
|
More mirrors. I told you, I'm not pretending ad hominem...
Quote:
I quoted your insulting assumption. Never mind splitting hairs. Quote:
Lie and insult. You make a big deal of it; I noted it, that's all. Quote:
Quote:
Don’t say that to me, say it to Gerdes." You are another Jew with no reflection. And Don't call me Mr. Smythe; call me smiggy! |
||||
June 17th, 2008 | #97 | |
Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 535
|
Quote:
The whole 'caust shebang is a Jew production. If not personally, by proxy. |
|
June 17th, 2008 | #98 | ||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||||
June 17th, 2008 | #99 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
June 17th, 2008 | #100 | ||
Member
|
[quote]
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
Share |
Thread | |
Display Modes | |
|