View Single Post
Old June 16th, 2008 #82
psychologicalshock
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Gerdes View Post
Roberta:

"The infantile ranting twats on this thread are you and Gerdes, while ps at least tries to make points. If Gerdes and you want to do "Revisionism" a favor, you should leave the discussion to ps."

PS, may I make a suggestion? Please don't take this wrong, I don't mean to tell you what to say or how to say it.
I am never against a suggestion.

Quote:

BUT

I brought this "debate" here because it was an archeology forum, and I wanted to keep the debate focused on the physical evidence - i.e. - evidence that could be described as that having being found via archeological methods and the photographic documentation of the "evidence." Roberta wants to "debate" with you because she's gotten you to respond to the nonsensical "eyewitness" crap she's peddling. Not that your response about the German firearms and cartridges / bullets wasn't very good or scientific in it's scope, and you've offered many other good scientifically valid points, but I think she wants to "discuss" this with you because you've ventured into the fantasy world of the "eyewitness" testimony.
I agree with you completely and it is a grave mistake on my part that I have crossed this line. It's rather arrogant of me to have done this .

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:
Again, I'm not trying to tell you what to do or say, but may I suggest that you not go into any of the "eyewitness" BS. And again, it's not because you couldn't and aren't kicking her ass, it's just that she wins no matter what when the focus of this "debate" gets away from the physical evidence (or more correctly - lack thereof) and gets into her Alice in Wonderland physically impossible tall tales.
Absolutely because I cannot make up the sort of story that I have against me, what I was doing is in itself counter-productive. I should be focusing on physical evidence as I have before.

Quote:
What I'm trying to say is, if she can get you to ask the wrong questions, it doesn't matter what answers you come up with. As long as the subject gets off course - she wins. That's her / the jew way. So just don't go there.
Of course because as I said before if the physical evidence contradicts the witness then the witness was lying to the court and thus guilty of contempt for it.

Quote:
My mantra for this thread is - Physical evidence.

I hope you understand what I'm trying to say.
I do and it was pointless to go after "he said, she said" White people should be above that.