wrote:
[...]
Great debator, that Philip
LOL! The little liar is pretending to be Tommy Moran!
Here's the debate, which Chrissy is too stupid to involve himself with.
Getting frustrated, Chrissy?
debunks2...@aol.com wrote:
philipmath...@comcast.net
<debunks2...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1109815596.130418.231440@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
philipmath...@comcast.net
"kilgore trout" <wha...@mattayu.edu> wrote in message
news:VhuUd.33396$uc.25904@trnddc01...
philipmath...@comcast.net wrote:
That's demonstrably false.
You have claimed in this thread that your ridiculous estimate of
hundreds of thousands killed at Dresden is credible because it
comes from "people who saw the destruction themselves". And yet
you
reject eyewitness estimates from Sonderkommandos who saw
destruction themselves at Auschwitz.
A clear double standard.
No it is not.
Yes it is.
As the man told you..the witnesses at Dresden were American POWs.
Irrelevant who they were.
REPLY: Actually it is quite relevant, for two reasons: they were
there and forced to assist in the work and they were the enemies of
Germany, and had every reason 'not' to affirm the estimates of the
dead. With Auschwitz, we are dealing with an entirely different
methodology.
PM wrote-
The issue is whether eyewitnesses to a mass murder can be expected
to
estimate the death toll.
They can't, either in the case of Dresden or Auschwitz.
REPLY: Auschwitz is an entirely different matter altogether.
No it isn't.
You claimed your outrageous death toll estimate was sound because it
was made by people who saw the destrction, just as eyewitnesses at
Auschwitz saw it.
In the former case you accept it, in the later you reject it.
REPLY: Yes, because your witnesses testimonies are blatantly at odds
with each other.
And so were the estimates at Dresden.
Nice try but you employed a double standard.
An obvious double standard.
Reply: Not at all, as I just pointed out to you.
What you pointed out is irrelevant. What you can demostrate is all that
matters.
Bellinger challenges the death tolls offered by eyewitnesses at
Auschwitz, while accepting as valid, precisely because they were
eyewitneses, the estimates of those at Dresden.
Double standard.
snip to
I challenge the
death tolls offered by eyewitnesses because they are so flagrantly
false and in line with Soviet propaganda.
PM writes-
No, the eyewitness death tolls are not in line with Soviet estimates.
The eyewitness estimates came first, moron.
REPLY: How quickly you resort to your usual stock in trade of
name-calling.
Then stop making stupid statements.
PM-
So the eyewitnesses at Auschwitz had no more reason to exaggerate
than
did the eyewitnesses at Dresden.
REPLY: That is your untenable position.
Not by anything you've been able to show.
The testimony given for the
dead at Dresden refer to a completely different situation and were
stated as factual by the enemies of Germany at the time.
PM writes-
The fact this it was a different situation is irrelevant. It is the
same type of situation, taking estimates of mass death from
eyewitness
evidence.
It is dubious in both cases. You only see it dubious when it comes to
the Holocaust of Jews, not the killing of Germans. You are employing
a
double standard.
REPLY: There is no double standard in my evaluation, Mr. Mathews.
I've shown there is.
PM-
Furthermore, the fact that eyewitnesses are not reliable for
estimating such totals is proven by the fact that your estimate has
been rejected for decades as nonsense.
REPLY: So have yours,
No they haven't.
======================================
Poor Chrissy!
--
Philip Mathews
.
