Pon wrote:Exactly, they are not the holes themselves, but indications of the holes. Any conflict in my description of that is simply due to simplifying on my part (it's just cumbersome to every time write indications of holes, instead of just holes), I have, however, explained that the smudges are not the holes themselves.
But that makes no sense, you keep repeating yourself.
If people walking around in places made those dark marks, there would be darker marks elsewhere. The would not be in that specific pattern, they would be connected. It's just a silly theory. The marks were added later or there was some other object[s] there, it's quite obvious. They don't fit any footstep pattern.
Yes, because it hadn't been confirmed that the they were not fakes, even I thought some things on those photos could be fakes, but I have recently been convinced otherwise when I understood that there's a second set of them (each photo is a stereoscopic pair),
OK please show me where it has been confirmed that they are not fakes. Show me the actual visual evidence.
in fact, when they examined it using stereoscopic techniques a small speck stuck out slightly in each of the smudges, possibly being the chimney (stereoscopy may reveal things that are too small to be resolved), that too is no definite proof and anyone would be hesitant to use it as it can be explained away, but it doesn't disprove anything either and does fit the greater picture.
Who is "They"? Have you, personally, seen these specks?
If not, you're pretending to have witnessed something you did not actually witness. You're absolutely sure about the existence of something you have not actually seen with your own eyes. But how?
How do you know they didn't just drop the pellets in if you want to believe it so badly? There's not any proof that any Jew was gassed, actually. Hence why you must resort to such silly documents and photographs.
In fact, why didn't the witnesses state that instead?
Some did, some didn't. It's that simple. There's actually less proof for a "Kula column" than there is for bigfoot or witchcraft/sorcery or alien abductions. There's actually many times more eyewitness testimony of these things than for Auschwitz gassings.
Eyewitness testimony is the lowest form of evidence in existence. "Holocaust" testimony is perhaps the least reliable of any due to various arguments provided here, the other thread, and elsewhere, including by Jews.
If they wanted to be deceptive why invent a kula column?
Well it seems to have worked for a large number of people, therefore the proof is in the pudding.
Why state something that could have been explained in a much easier way? It's actually something that sparks credibility, not the other way around.
Exactly, a good lie is supposed to spark credibility. They had a lot of time and a lot of smart people to help them figure out the lie they were going to go with.
And, conversely, why would the Nazis have used these ridiculous gas chambers and crematoria when it could have been done in a much easier and more effective way?
You're really trying to pretend that "Some people lied" is harder to believe than "Some people shoved hundreds of thousands into primitive, makeshift gas chambers and cremated almost all of them in crude, individual oven muffles."
Obviously not all the "inmates" were close to the gas-chambers, those that could testify about gas-chambers were the victims of them, except for the sonder-kommando and a few that got to be near the gas-chambers for whatever reason.
Ah, yes, those Sonderkommando who were supposed to be killed every 4 months to keep the secret, but somehow the Nazis forgot to do it for a large number
The testimonies come from a lot of different sources, very little chance that they "got together" and agreed on the story.
You have been specifically challenged in this thread:Challenge to Believer 'Pon' on so called "Eyewitnesses"viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12767
There's actually a very big chance that many testimonies were influenced by other people. They had quite a bit of time to prepare them. Also, the various testimonies vary wildly in the details, you're just cherry picking the ones that seem to agree with each other on certain details and ignoring the rest.
I honestly don't think the "kula columns" would be mentioned by so many different people if they didn't exist. One would wonder (if they actually weren't there) could they have mistaken them for something else? But what would that be?
They weren't actually mentioned by all that many people, but I think it's far easier to believe that, say, a dozen or so people could tell similar lies than hundreds of thosuands of jews being shoved into gas chambers via a 'secret order' but somehow there is no actual physical evidence to substantiate this. The "Holes" are completely absurd. The ferrocyanide traces are insignificant. The structure was totally ridiculous for the purpose. And, of course, the total lack of documentary evidence for such a massive operation.
I don't think they mistaked anything, I think they were just lying. They agreed upon some sort of lie, and went with it. This sort of thing happens all of the time. It's why eyewitness testimony is the lowest form of evidence. People can and do say literally anything.
How could so many people describe a very similar bigfoot? Or alien abductions? Or witchcraft/sorcery?
This isn't hard to believe, it's not unique.
I don't buy this at all, Pon. Firstly, I can use my own brain to judge witness accounts. If you think a particular witness account detailing these alleged "Devices" is credible, please make a thread on that.
That's the thing, you think you can, but in fact you are just being ignorant of a lot of details that forensic experts and psychologists do know about when it comes to testimonies.
What details, Pon?
Seems like you keep resorting to the "Appeal to authority" fallacy, without basis. It's like your entire argument is:"Some smart people proved it somewhere, we should trust anything they say, they are experts!"
I'm not buying it.
I don't consider the authors of any of those books to be experts on everything, maybe they are historians? It isn't up to them to judge the witness reliability but refer to experts that have judged how reliable they are.
You're not making one bit of sense, Pon. That's not how it works. The truth about science and history are not determined by a 'consensus of experts'.
In many countries it is ILLEGAL to "deny the Holocaust" so no 'expert' will ever come to that conclusion. Any 'expert' who "denies the Holocaust" will, automatically, lose their "expert" status. Your reasoning is circular and it's defended using the no true scotsman fallacy. The appeal to authority is a non sequitur.
Anyone aside from those with photographic memory would be unreliable in various degrees, if you ask me to detail what I did yesterday I would probably get the basic things right, but maybe I had a different color on my shirt, maybe I thought I had eaten broccoli while it was actually the day before that I ate broccoli. You might see that anyone can make mistakes without intent, especially if they are going to detail things happening a long time ago. Because of that the earliest witnesses are of course deemed more reliable than those that stepped forward years later. They also have to examine each witness statement as to how they correspond to the avilable evidence, and how they correspond to eachother. It's simply not as simple as you think.
It's not what you think either, Pon. Show me these alleged cross-examined witnesses in the other thread where their claims were corroborated with the "Available evidence". And, also, prove they would have been charged with perjury for lying.Challenge to Believer 'Pon' on so called "Eyewitnesses"viewtopic.php?t=12767
You're making a huge leap of faith. You're pretending as though the "War crimes trials" were some highly effective methods for finding truth, with very rigorous standards of evidence. You know, like a regular court case. Unfortunately, this is absolutely not the case. One could more readily call these trials "Show trials" and various academics and law experts around the world, even "Holocaust believers" did that very thing. I suggest the following threads:The Trial of Dr. Bruno Teschviewtopic.php?t=12602Nuremberg - Fair Trial or Show Trial ?viewtopic.php?t=11053Has any Jewish "Holocaust" witnesses been charged with perjury in a war crimes trial?viewtopic.php?t=12762
Justice Robert Jackson explains:"As a military tribunal, this Tribunal is a continuation of the war effort of the Allied nations. As an International Tribunal, it is not bound by the procedural and substantive refinements of our respective judicial or constitutional systems."
Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Harlan Fiske Stone remarked:"Jackson is away conducting his high-grade lynching party in Nuremberg. I don’t mind what he does to the Nazis, but I hate to see the pretense that he is running a court and proceeding according to common law. This is a little too sanctimonious a fraud to meet my old-fashioned ideas."
U.S. Congressional Representative, Lawrence H. Smith of Wisconsin said:"The Nuremberg Trials are so repugnant to the Anglo-Saxon principles of justice that we must forever be ashamed of that page in our history."
U.S. Senator Robert A. Taft:About this whole judgment there is the spirit of vengeance, and vengeance is seldom justice. The hanging of the eleven men convicted will be a blot on the American record which we will long regret. In these trials we have accepted the Russian idea of the purpose of trials -- government policy and not justice -- with little relation to Anglo-Saxon heritage. By clothing policy in the forms of legal procedure, we may discredit the whole idea of justice in Europe for years to come.
Note: Taft was later praised by president John F. Kennedy for his devotion to principle during a time of widespread anti-German hysteria, in his award-winning best seller, 'Profiles in Courage'.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas:"I thought at the time and still think that the Nuremberg trials were unprincipled. Law was created ex post facto to suit the passion and clamor of the time."
Edgar N. Eisenhower, American Attorney, brother of President Dwight D. Eisenhower:"I think the Nuremberg trials are a black page in the history of the world...I discussed the legality of these trials with some of the lawyers and some of the judges who participated therein. They did not attempt to justify their action on any legal ground, but rested their position on the fact that in their opinion, the parties convicted were guilty...This action is contrary to the fundamental laws under which this country has lived for many hundreds of years, and I think cannot be justified by any line of reasoning."
Rear Admiral, U.S.N. Dan V. Gallery:"This kangaroo court at Nuremberg was officially known as the 'International Military Tribunal.' That name is a libel on the military profession. The tribunal was not a military one in any sense. The only military men among the judges were the Russians.... At Nuremberg, mankind and our present civilization were on trial, with men whose own hands were bloody sitting on the judges' seats. One of the judges came from the country which committed the Katyn Forest massacre and produced an array of witnesses to swear at Nuremberg that the Germans had done it."
Do those individuals reach your standard of "Expert"? Something you have never defined, of course