the usual big bluff / True Believer 'Nessie' pleads his case, but without proof / + Sobibor, Treblinka

[Hannover]

Here we go, the classic big bluff that is frequently invoked by those who benefit / profit from the impossible narrative, yet it absolutely lacks substance.

From another forum.

In challenging True Believer 'Nessie' on his religious belief in the 'holocaust' storyline, blogger 'been-there' said:

Would that be the kind of 'evidence' that despite answering twice you haven't been able to present yet?
Will this be like the documentary evidence you claimed you knew of yet couldn't provide for transports to Chelmno? Etc., etc., etc.

Nessie responds:

No, it is primary evidence from original documents, witnesses, photos and forensics all researched by qualified academics. I have weighed what they have to say against what denial/revisionism has to say and found the former far better evidenced and more convincing than the latter. The latter is full of holes, pseudo-science, bad logic and reliant on fallacies.

Can anyone tell us about and show us the alleged "primary evidence" 'Nessie' is referring to? Specifics please.
Can anyone explain to us how Revisionist research is allegedly "full of holes, pseudo-science, bad logic and reliant on fallacies" ? Specifics please.
Can anyone explain to us what determines and who is a "qualified academic"? Who actually decides? Specifics please.

This could be good.

also see:
'The use of logical fallacies / Nessie craps out'
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8814

Thanks, Hannover

“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”.
Arthur Schopenhauer

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that denies free speech and the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

The tide is turning.

[borjastick]

There's a reason why people like Nessie post at other forums and shy away (or come here and then run away) from Codoh Forum.

At other forums they are often preaching to the lightweights and the believers. Either way they can say what they like, sound educated and superior, Lord it over newbies and if that fails launch into abuse, and threats.

Here that won't work, because we are one and strong though not always do we agree, we present a formidable force of knowledge and intellect. We are not hairy-arsed Neo nazis or a bunch of racist fascists. No, we are well read and able to apply the sort of logic only available to those who have no axe to grind and thus who see the obvious truth.

Nessie and his type follow the path of sneering contempt and hatred for those who bring good news, that six million jews were not killed in the holocaust. That much they know but will never admit, which is why they rarely come here...

[Morrison]

Hannover:

Can anyone tell us about and show us the alleged "primary evidence" 'Nessie' is referring to? Specifics please.

Can anyone explain to us how Revisionist research is allegedly "full of holes, pseudo-science, bad logic and reliant on fallacies" ? Specifics please.

Can anyone explain to us what determines and who is a "qualified academic"? Who actually decides? Specifics please.

This could be good.

borjastick:

There's a reason why people like Nessie post at other forums and shy away (or come here and then run away) from Codoh Forum... which is why they rarely come here...

Actually, Nessie can answer Hannover's questions himself:

Morrison:

You behave like that Nessie fellow who was banned from Codoh for lying and dodging.

M1:

No, he is not banned.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10120&start=30#p77524

[Werd]

He recently trolled me in a thread on another board where people can make recommendations or complaints to moderators.

Werd:
My invective is contingent on Nessie's (mis)behaviour.

Nessie:
In that case, since you keep misrepresenting me in various debates, I should be able to abuse you

Werd:
Like you did to me [sic] a long time ago?

Nessie:
Here is the [my] comment in context:

Since I know you reject all witness testimony, the remains were mostly destroyed by the Nazis to conceal cause of death and there has not been any testing of remains to see if they died of CO poisoning (if that can be done or not I do not know), I cannot prove to you that there were gas chambers.

I am clearly referring to witness testimony about mass murder and the Holocaust, not every single witness testimony ever

Werd:
I know that. I never implied you were implying that I implied that about you. My post shows that I understood the context was only in the holocaust. Proof? I stuck to the topic of the holocaust, I.E. Wiernick. So you f___ed up again.

Nessie:
So now you admit I did not misrepresent you. I think it is way past your bedtime Werd.

Werd:
Actually you did. Since the discussion was about the holocaust and I never left it, that means I comprehend that you were claiming I reject all witness testimony about the holocaust. That also is untrue as I showed when I talked about Wiernick. Did you drink your lunch, today?


I must specify that to prove a point to Nessie I went through Wiernick's book and found some passages about certain things, 9, to be exact that he seemed to recall with the utmost clarity. And yet there were things that he saw once for a fleeting moment and then never again. And yet we were supposed to believe that he can't get the colour of freshly gassed corpses right despite seeing them allegedly day after day week after week. Continuing on...


Nessie:
Since you know I was only talking about witnesses to the Holocaust mass murders, how was I misrepresenting you?

Werd:
Because you implied I did not know you were only talking about the holocaust when you decided to make a distinction between the holocaust and everything else. Hence you made a false insinuation about me. Are you starting to get the picture, now?

Nessie:
In the post you have complained about I did not misrepresent you or imply you did not know I was only referring to mass murders during the Holocaust. You have no complaint. You are just trying to manufacture one because I have legitimate complaints about your abuse and off topic trolling.

Werd:
You differentiated between holocaust testimony and all other testimony and rolled your eyes at me and scolded me saying you were only talking about holocaust testimony and nothing else. That implies I made a mistake thinking you were talking about something other than the holocaust. But clearly I did not make such a mistaken assumption since I stuck to the holocaust with my post about Wiernick and his 9 things.

So your mistake was to think I made a mistake.

[borjastick]

People of Nessie's ilk have closed minds together with a dollop of arrogance that defies belief. They are, as you have experienced, condescending and rude. In short they have a sneering contempt for those who deign to have a different opinion to them.

They wrap this up quite well in a veneer of academic, holier than thou 'I know more than you so just you hush your mouth'.

But you will notice that the substance is always missing. They deliberately distract by trying to push an agenda or an argument on an abstract or irrelevant detail. Not detail that will win the bigger argument mind you but detail that doesn't matter but which they can use to derail you and your direction.

They always steer well clear of the bigger picture stuff because they know that they cannot win that pursuit.

Nessie needs to be ignored, he's a child and thinks he's tough because he can abuse you from behind a plastic key board.

[Werd]

He still can't let it go. He's still at it...

Nessie:
So how did I misrepresent you?

Werd:
at the bottom of page 6 you had a different response. You said "here is the comment in context" with a link back to a post of your own. And then the following happened: You differentiated between holocaust testimony and all other testimony and rolled your eyes at me and scolded me saying you were only talking about holocaust testimony and nothing else.

I am clearly referring to witness testimony about mass murder and the Holocaust, not every single witness testimony ever

That implies I made a mistake thinking you were talking about something other than the holocaust. But clearly I did not make such a mistaken assumption. I stuck to the holocaust with my post about Wiernick and his 9 things. So your mistake was to think I made a mistake.

Nessie:
The exchange was; I said "Since I know you reject all witness testimony" and you replied "Not true". I have pointed out that if you read the the whole quote you would see I was referring to testimony about mass murders during the Holocaust, not all witnesses testimony about everything. So now misrepresentation by me.

Werd:
I know you were. That is the whole point. I never said, "not true" to refer to anything other than eyewitness testimony outside the holocaust. You seemed to think I was. Well I wasn't. The proof is that I stayed within the context of the holocaust by immediately talking about Wiernick AND NOTHING ELSE THAT WAS UN-RELATED TO THE HOLOCAUST. Your mistake was to think I made that mistake. You screwed up about me. And you have refused to acknowledge your mistake for over a page now.

Nessie:
You have moved the goalposts since the original exchange was an error by you.

Werd:
And what was the error? You have already said:

I have pointed out that if you read the the whole quote you would see I was referring to testimony about mass murders during the Holocaust, not all witnesses testimony about everything.

And I never said/thought/implied did anything to indicate that I believed you were talking about anything outside the holocaust. The proof is that I stayed within the context of the holocaust by immediately talking about Wiernick AND NOTHING ELSE THAT WAS UN-RELATED TO THE HOLOCAUST. Your conspiracy theory that I was thinking you were talking about anything else outside the holocaust is wrong. Your mistake was to think I made that mistake. Go back to page 7.

I am clearly referring to witness testimony about mass murder and the Holocaust, not every single witness testimony ever

I know that. I never implied you were implying that I implied that about you. My post shows that I understood the context was only in the holocaust. Proof? I stuck to the topic of the holocaust, I.E. Wiernick. So you fucked up again.

Since I know you reject all witness testimony

Not true.

I quoted many extracts from Wiernick to show he remembered a lot of things about Treblinka that had nothing to do with gas chambers.
LINK.
Lies and falsities get mixed up with truth all the time. The question is, who wants to take the time and try their best to sort them out and seperate them?

SOURCE]

Stop goofing off, Nessie.

So in one of your last posts when you said:

The exchange was; I said "Since I know you reject all witness testimony" and you replied "Not true".

You cut the exchange short and oversimplified because when we get into details, we clearly see I never operated the way you accused me of operating when you felt you need to make a distinction between holocaust eyewitness testimony and all other eyewitness testimony. So by cutting the exchange short and oversimplifying, that indicates to me you know deep down you screwed up and have lost and are just trying to save face the only way you know how. By keeping the debate alive longer than necessary by adding MORE PAGES.

[Werd]

Nessie:
It is true that you reject all witness testimony that speaks of mass murder by gassing and shooting. Hence you reject Fedorenko because he speaks to mass murder at TII, not it being a transit camp.

Werd:
Is Nessie finally admitting in a roundabout way that he was wrong? That indeed I was talking strictly about the holocaust and never ever thought anything else was on the table like he seemed to think I did?

Nessie:
No, I was not wrong. I was talking about mass murder during the Holocaust in a thread where a Nazi guard admitted it took place at TII. You do reject all witnesses, like Fedorenko who say there was mass murder by the Nazis of Jews and others by gassing and shooting.

Werd:
He is f___ed on this issue and he knows it.

Nessie:
The post you originally claimed was a misrepresentation was in a thread about a SS guard who admitted TII was a death camp. That is why you cut out this comment from your reply;

"I was talking about mass murder during the Holocaust in a thread where a Nazi guard admitted it took place at TII. You do reject all witnesses, like Fedorenko who say there was mass murder by the Nazis of Jews and others by gassing and shooting."
...and you then run away swearing and being abusive.

Werd:
He is f___ed on this issue and he knows it.

I am clearly referring to witness testimony about mass murder and the Holocaust, not every single witness testimony ever

I know that. I never implied you were implying that I implied that about you. My post shows that I understood the context was only in the holocaust. Proof? I stuck to the topic of the holocaust, I.E. Wiernick. So you fucked up again.

Since I know you reject all witness testimony

Not true.

I quoted many extracts from Wiernick to show he remembered a lot of things about Treblinka that had nothing to do with gas chambers.
LINK.
Lies and falsities get mixed up with truth all the time. The question is, who wants to take the time and try their best to sort them out and seperate them?
SOURCE

Stop goofing off, Nessie.

[Werd]

He is still going at it pages later. Let me jump ahead to the latest.

Werd:
If Nessie claims I am wrong to think he thought I thought he was talking about something other than holocaust testimonies, why did he differentiate at all as the red and blue shows? And then subsequently scold me by posting a rolling eyes icon in his original post? Answer: He thought I thought he was talking about something else outside the scope of holocaust testimony. But I clearly wasn't since I stayed on the subject of holocaust testimony when talking about Wiernick. Hell even in the posts BEFORE he decided to differentiate and roll his eyes at me for allegedly thinking anything other than holocaust testimony was on the table, NOWHERE did I bring in any other testimony than holocaust testimony.

Nessie:
Therefore I did not misrepresent you. You do dismiss all testimony which speaks to mass gassing and shootings as per my original claim.

Werd:
Why did Nessie differentiate at all as the red and blue shows? And then subsequently scold me by posting a rolling eyes icon in his original post? Answer: He thought I thought he was talking about something else outside the scope of holocaust testimony. But I clearly didn't.

Nessie:
I knew you were talking about Holocaust testimony, specifically mass gassing and shooting. The thread was about a witness at TII. Therefore I did not misrepresent you. You do dismiss all testimony which speaks to mass gassing and shootings as per my original claim.

Werd:

I knew you were talking about Holocaust testimony, specifically mass gassing and shooting.

In the original thread about Feodor Fedorenko, blackrabbit showed on page one why revisionists have good reason to question his testimony. he was in the process of being de-naturalized and was under pressure to conform to the established historical narrative. On page 2, I demonstrated a cottage industry of framing up any Ukranian they could to the point of the sham of a trial that was the Israeli one against Demjanjuk. Jews even resorted to intimidation, physical attacks and murder. I even said on page 2, "People died in the camp. Okay fine. Prove there were gas chambers. Feodor's testimony in and of itself to gas chambers is meaningless. Especially with the anti Ukranian climate I just outlined in my previous post." I singled out Feodor's testimony as useless. That prompted you to say in the next post

Since I know you reject all witness testimony, the remains were mostly destroyed by the Nazis to conceal cause of death and there has not been any testing of remains to see if they died of CO poisoning (if that can be done or not I do not know), I cannot prove to you that there were gas chambers.

But the isolated phrase, "Since I know you reject all witness testimony" is vague and not put into proper context. It could mean holocaust related testimony or all other testimony. I.E. non holocaust testimony. But we have to stick to the DISCUSSION and the OTHER WORDS and OTHER SENTENCES to see in what context this phrase is to be read. But your words around that particular clause suggested it was only about holocaust testimony. I CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD THAT since I STUCK TO THE HOLOCAUST by mentioning Wiernick's testimony. But I did it to disprove your assertion I reject all witness testimony. That explains my post on page 3.

Since I know you reject all witness testimony

Not true.

I quoted many extracts from Wiernick to show he remembered a lot of things about Treblinka that had nothing to do with gas chambers.
LINK
Lies and falsities get mixed up with truth all the time. The question is, who wants to take the time and try their best to sort them out and seperate them?

SOURCE

Your post following that was this:

So do you accept Wiernick's testimony that TII was a place of death and not a transit camp? Do you say he only made the part about gas chambers?

So you understood back then in the Feodor topic from the middle of February this year, you and I BOTH HAD AN UNDERSTANDING OF EACH OTHER that whatever words we used for our sentences, ONLY TESTIMONIES FROM THE HOLOCAUST were on the table.

This means that you had no reason to differentiate between holocaust testimony and non holocaust testimony back on page 6 in this topic and treat me like a stupid little kid who back in February in another topic did not understand that only the holocaust was on the table and not non holocaust testimonies.

I am clearly referring to witness testimony about mass murder and the Holocaust, not every single witness testimony ever

I know you were. THAT'S THE ISSUE. You for some reason thought I thought non holocaust testimony was ever on the table. I never did. You made a mistake about what I thought. It was wrong. You screwed up back on page 6. The fact that you FELT THE NEED to differentiate between the holocaust testimony and all other non holocaust testimony

I am clearly referring to witness testimony about mass murder and the Holocaust, not every single witness testimony ever

proves you thought that I thought you were talking about something other than the holocaust (but I clearly wasn't). Otherwise, why bother to differentiate at all? Why bother to scold me and roll your eyes? Clearly because you thought I thought other non holocaust testimony was on the table for discussion. BUT I CLEARLY DID NOT. Again, you screwed up back on page 6. And you have wasted 6 pages pretending you never made such a mistaken assumption and then subsequent unnecessary scolding of me. When you insinuate that I am too stupid to know you were talking about holocaust testimony, that TOTALLY CONTRADICTS your newest statement that you knew I was talking about holocaust testimony.

So you have lied, dodged and contradicted yourself. Bravo, troll!

So you think that solved it? Nope.

Nessie:

......

I am clearly referring to witness testimony about mass murder and the Holocaust, not every single witness testimony ever

I know you were........

Which means I did not misrepresent you. You do dismiss all testimony which speaks to mass gassing and shootings as per my original claim.

Werd:

......
I know you were........

Which means I did not misrepresent you.

This is about you claiming I did not know what was in your mind back on page 6 when I clearly did. THAT'S THE ISSUE. You for some reason thought I thought non holocaust testimony was ever on the table. I never did.

I am clearly referring to witness testimony about mass murder and the Holocaust, not every single witness testimony ever

The fact that you FELT THE NEED to differentiate between the holocaust testimony and all other non holocaust testimony proves you thought that I thought you were talking about something other than the holocaust (but I clearly wasn't). Otherwise, why bother to differentiate at all? Why bother to scold me and roll your eyes? Clearly because you thought I thought other non holocaust testimony was on the table for discussion. BUT I CLEARLY DID NOT. Again, you screwed up back on page 6. And you have wasted 6 pages pretending you never made such a mistaken assumption and then subsequent unnecessary scolding of me.

When you insinuate on page 6 that I am too stupid to know you were talking about holocaust testimony, that TOTALLY CONTRADICTS your newest statement on page 12. "I knew you were talking about Holocaust testimony."

[Werd]

Nessie:
Werd, I did not misrepresent you. You do dismiss all testimony which speaks to mass gassing and shootings as per my original claim.

Werd:
Nessie received quite the thrashing on page 12 and he knows it. His original claim months ago in the middle of February.

Since I know you reject all witness testimony, the remains were mostly destroyed by the Nazis to conceal cause of death and there has not been any testing of remains to see if they died of CO poisoning...

Nessie's use of language means I reject ALL WITNESS TESTIMONY, even things not related to gas chambers. That is why I had to correct him and tell him what I find believable and correct from Wiernick. So now with egg on his face because of this, he has to do the bait and switch.

You do dismiss all testimony which speaks to mass gassing and shootings as per my original claim.

So no, this was not your original claim. The way you worded your original claim leaves no room for me to make room for the things in Wiernick I do take seriously; whereas this one does. Difference. Now with that out of the way, you still insinuated I was too stupid to realize that only holocaust testimony was on the table for discussion and not non holocaust testimony. That is why you made that distinction (my red and blue text pages back) and then proceeded to roll your eyes at me. As I said on page 12, when you insinuate on page 6 that I am too stupid to know you were talking about holocaust testimony, that TOTALLY CONTRADICTS your newest statement on page 12. "I knew you were talking about Holocaust testimony."

[borjastick]

Werd, why waste your time and energy on this man? We know who he is and he splashes about in the shallows trying to derail your thought line etc. Just look at the repeated use of 'so we know you reject all witness statements'. It's all bollocks, he's irrelevant and not worth the bother.

[Hannover]

Werd, why waste your time and energy on this man? We know who he is and he splashes about in the shallows trying to derail your thought line etc. Just look at the repeated use of 'so we know you reject all witness statements'. It's all bollocks, he's irrelevant and not worth the bother.

Agreed.
'Nessie' has been demolished right & left at this forum, any rational person can see that. He and his laughable, impossible storyline have no chance whatsoever against informed Revisionists. His claimed faith in so called 'survivors", and faith is what it is, I doubt he really believes them anyway, does not withstand scrutiny. Each of those that he cites are bizarre and contradictory in the extreme and Revisionists have shredded them all.
Truth does not matter to those like him.

Another one bites the dust.

- Hannover

Alone the fact that one may not question the Jewish "holocaust" and that Jewish pressure has inflicted laws on democratic societies to prevent questions—while incessant promotion and indoctrination of the same averredly incontestable ‘holocaust’ occur—gives the game away. It proves that it must be a lie. Why else would one not be allowed to question it? Because it might offend the "survivors"? Because it "dishonors the dead"? Hardly sufficient reason to outlaw discussion. No, because the exposure of this leading lie might precipitate questions about so many other lies and cause the whole ramshackle fabrication to crumble."

- Gerard Menuhin / Revisionist Jew, son of famous violinist

[Nessie..]

There's a reason why people like Nessie post at other forums and shy away (or come here and then run away) from Codoh Forum.

I have never run away, I just get moderated and then find I cannot log on any more. I am now onto my third version of Nessie so i can log on again.

At other forums they are often preaching to the lightweights and the believers. Either way they can say what they like, sound educated and superior, Lord it over newbies and if that fails launch into abuse, and threats.

I spend most of my time at RODOH with experienced denier/revisionists who abuse and threaten me. The latest to issue threats was Charles Traynor who has been suspended.

Here that won't work, because we are one and strong though not always do we agree, we present a formidable force of knowledge and intellect. We are not hairy-arsed Neo nazis or a bunch of racist fascists. No, we are well read and able to apply the sort of logic only available to those who have no axe to grind and thus who see the obvious truth.

Nessie and his type follow the path of sneering contempt and hatred for those who bring good news, that six million jews were not killed in the holocaust. That much they know but will never admit, which is why they rarely come here...

A lack of evidence for mass Jewish survivors from Sobibor, TII, Belzec, Chelmno and Birkenau is a major reason why I do not believe the denial/revisionism's claim for 6 million survivors.

[Nessie..]

....... His claimed faith in so called 'survivors", and faith is what it is, I doubt he really believes them anyway, does not withstand scrutiny. Each of those that he cites are bizarre and contradictory in the extreme and Revisionists have shredded them all.
Truth does not matter to those like him.

.......

The survivor testimony that I do believe is that which is corroborated by other evidence, which is the standard used in Scots Law. So a survivor witness who states the bodies at TII were exhumed and cremated is corroborated by the archaeological evidence of ash and cremains found at the site. A survivor witness who states they were selected to work on arriving at Birkenau and those not were lead away and never seen again is corroborated by Nazi admissions, photos of selections and the missing Jews. Both are then accepted as telling the truth.

Bizarre evidence such as repeated survival of gassings is not believed because of a lack of corroboration and the science which makes repeated exposure to poisonous gas not survivable. The contradictions are due to eye witness evidence being the least accurate in detail of all forms of evidence. Where none are contradictory is that the Nazis conducted mass murder of Jews and others they regarded as sub human.

[Moderator]

Nessie:
Citing links without specific comment on the specific content of those links will not do here. See guidelines.
Also, posting articles about Sobibor which have already been discussed at length will not do here. A form of dodging.
Please respond to the specific threads on Sobibor, i.e.:
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10291
and:
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10377
and
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10137

M1

[Hannover]

As usual Nessie dodges the tough questions see:

'The use of logical fallacies / Nessie craps out'
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8814

Nessie, I challenge you to start a thread and show us excavations of the claimed enormous mass graves whose locations are supposedly known. No diversionary links, no dodging.
Actual excavations with massive human remains shown and verified.
ex. :
Jews claim that 900,000 Jews are buried at Treblinka, 34,000 supposedly buried at Babi Yar, ca. 2,000,000 supposedly buried by the Einsatzgruppen, 1,250,000 supposedly buried at Auschwitz.

I challenge you to start a thread explaining how the alleged 'gas chambers' supposedly worked. No diversionary links, no dodging. We're waiting.

you said:

A survivor witness who states they were selected to work on arriving at Birkenau and those not were lead away and never seen again is corroborated by Nazi admissions, photos of selections and the missing Jews. Both are then accepted as telling the truth.

I see no such "corroboration" at all.
How do you know they were not seen again?
And you claim all 'missing' Jews went to huge mass graves, but cannot show us excavations of the alleged enormous mass graves with confirmed human remains.
See above.

- Hannover

This is too easy.