The consequences of a lack of relevant training & expertise.

[Archie]

A couple other points,

1) At the heart of the controversy over the historicity of the Holocaust, expertise is not the true source of disagreement.

2) Expertise is domain specific. A seasoned revisionist will, as a rule, know more about the details of the extermination centers than most PhD historians by a large margin. Those of the latter group who are informed have obviously read revisionist material and had to make a special effort to engage with it (probably because they perceived the awkward silence of the mainstream to be a problem). Most Phd historians know little about the specific topics we discuss here (although they could get up to speed pretty quickly if they desired). It's too specialized. Even WWII historians are not generally well-versed in this stuff. This is even true of Holocaust historians. They may know a lot about "the Holocaust" in general, but most of them would not be well-prepared to debate a revisionist. Michael Shermer said that when he was prepping for Donahue that he called Hilberg and Berenbaum and a bunch of others and they had no clue about the gas chambers. At that time, the most knowledgeable believer (half-believer) was Pressac, a pharmacist and former revisionist!

[Numar Patru]

That’s silly. There are plenty of doctoral level historians with expertise on the death camps and gas chambers: van Pelt, Piper, Arad, and Beorn all come readily to mind. None engage(d) with denier works.

[Archie]

That’s silly. There are plenty of doctoral level historians with expertise on the death camps and gas chambers: van Pelt, Piper, Arad, and Beorn all come readily to mind. None engage(d) with denier works.

There's no question Van Pelt is very familiar with revisionist work and with Pressac (who was revisionist in approach and was responding to revisionists). He borrowed heavily from Pressac. Arad, I have know idea how much revisionist literature he may have privately read, but if it wasn't much he would have been ill-prepared to debate a revisionist. Same with Piper (though Piper is surely somewhat familiar with revisionism). I don't know Beorn much except he's the guy who bullied Matt Cockerill for debating revisionists (according to Cockerill).
viewtopic.php?t=52

It's possible that Holocaust historians do read more revisionist stuff privately than they mention publicly. Presumably some of them get curious about it. But from what I can gather most of them aren't that interested in the technical details that revisionists tend to focus on. Remember that "Holocaust" scholarship is quite broad and it includes a lot of ancillary topics. Would someone like say Hasia Diner (to name a random example) be well-prepared to debate a revisionist? I doubt it. The number of "Holocaust historians" who really delve into the details of the gas chambers is certainty a minority. And I don't think there had been any detailed publications on gas chambers until after revisionism started to pick up steam.

[Nessie]

Pointing out that trained, experienced people are less likely to make mistakes than untrained, inexperienced people, is not the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.

Common mistakes by revisionists

1 - they fail at the basic task of any historical investigation as they do not gather evidence to prove what happened and produce a chronological narrative to a conclusion. Instead, they produce a non-history of what they say did not happen that leaves us hanging, not knowing what happened.

2 - they are very ignorant about witnesses, memory and recall, resulting in the remarkable conclusion that 100% of the witnesses who worked at the death camps are liars and there is not one single truthful witness who can be traced. That is despite millions of people having been to those places. Known issues about memory and recall are used to claim lies, when mistakes, figures of speech, hyperbole, over-estimations are a far better explanation.

3 - they are heavily reliant on the fallacy of argument from incredulity. The crux of revisionisms non-history is that they cannot believe the evidence for gassings, therefore it cannot have and did not happen. They try to use science to support their doubts, but just because they cannot work out about wood or coke supplies for cremations, of the lack of HCN residue in the tiny part of Krema II that could be tested or the use of wooden gas chamber doors, does not therefore mean no gassings.

4 - they are ignorant of the history. Accusations of the torture of Nazis, centre on Hoess, whilst ignoring most Nazis who worked at the death camps were tried by German prosecutors with no evidence of any coercion. They think a wooden door at Krema I, led into the gas chamber, not knowing it led into a small room that then led into the gas chambers, a wall having later been demolished. They do not know about the Topf & Sons engineer documentary and witness evidence, or that most death camp staff trials took place in West Germany.

Those mistakes would not been made by a trained, experienced historian or other investigator.

[Nessie]

... But from what I can gather most of them aren't that interested in the technical details that revisionists tend to focus on...

That is because revisionists pouring over the evidence as to how the gas chambers were ventilated, or not as they often claim, is not evidence to prove the existence of gas chambers. You cannot argue something that is evidenced to have existed, out of existence. You need to evidence it did not exist. Historians gather evidence to establish what happened. Revisionists argue that in their opinion, an event did not happen, contrary to the evidence it did happen and then fail to evidence what did happen. Most historians are not interested in obviously logically flawed arguments and a non-history.

[Numar Patru]

Pointing out that trained, experienced people are less likely to make mistakes than untrained, inexperienced people, is not the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.

Common mistakes by revisionists

1 - they fail at the basic task of any historical investigation as they do not gather evidence to prove what happened and produce a chronological narrative to a conclusion. Instead, they produce a non-history of what they say did not happen that leaves us hanging, not knowing what happened.

2 - they are very ignorant about witnesses, memory and recall, resulting in the remarkable conclusion that 100% of the witnesses who worked at the death camps are liars and there is not one single truthful witness who can be traced. That is despite millions of people having been to those places. Known issues about memory and recall are used to claim lies, when mistakes, figures of speech, hyperbole, over-estimations are a far better explanation.

3 - they are heavily reliant on the fallacy of argument from incredulity. The crux of revisionisms non-history is that they cannot believe the evidence for gassings, therefore it cannot have and did not happen. They try to use science to support their doubts, but just because they cannot work out about wood or coke supplies for cremations, of the lack of HCN residue in the tiny part of Krema II that could be tested or the use of wooden gas chamber doors, does not therefore mean no gassings.

4 - they are ignorant of the history. Accusations of the torture of Nazis, centre on Hoess, whilst ignoring most Nazis who worked at the death camps were tried by German prosecutors with no evidence of any coercion. They think a wooden door at Krema I, led into the gas chamber, not knowing it led into a small room that then led into the gas chambers, a wall having later been demolished. They do not know about the Topf & Sons engineer documentary and witness evidence, or that most death camp staff trials took place in West Germany.

Those mistakes would not been made by a trained, experienced historian or other investigator.

They're also very fond of "smoking gun" types of evidence and believe such a smoking gun can level every other piece of evidence. Their methodology is absolute dogshit.

[Archie]

... But from what I can gather most of them aren't that interested in the technical details that revisionists tend to focus on...

That is because revisionists pouring over the evidence as to how the gas chambers were ventilated, or not as they often claim, is not evidence to prove the existence of gas chambers. You cannot argue something that is evidenced to have existed, out of existence. You need to evidence it did not exist. Historians gather evidence to establish what happened. Revisionists argue that in their opinion, an event did not happen, contrary to the evidence it did happen and then fail to evidence what did happen. Most historians are not interested in obviously logically flawed arguments and a non-history.

The expression is "to pore over," not "pour over."

Normally I wouldn't draw attention to such errors, but since you are bragging like an ass about your supposed education and credentials you are sort of asking for it.

[Archie]

Nessie: "They do not know about the Topf & Sons engineer documentary and witness evidence, or that most death camp staff trials took place in West Germany."

Revisionists don't know about the Topf engineers? I supposed that's why there's a Holocaust Handbooks volume on that exact topic? You are so full of it.

And lol at Numar endorsing Nessie's nonsense. If you find yourself endorsing Nessie, it's time to reevaluate things.

[Nessie]

... But from what I can gather most of them aren't that interested in the technical details that revisionists tend to focus on...

That is because revisionists pouring over the evidence as to how the gas chambers were ventilated, or not as they often claim, is not evidence to prove the existence of gas chambers. You cannot argue something that is evidenced to have existed, out of existence. You need to evidence it did not exist. Historians gather evidence to establish what happened. Revisionists argue that in their opinion, an event did not happen, contrary to the evidence it did happen and then fail to evidence what did happen. Most historians are not interested in obviously logically flawed arguments and a non-history.

The expression is "to pore over," not "pour over."

Normally I wouldn't draw attention to such errors, but since you are bragging like an ass about your supposed education and credentials you are sort of asking for it.

It is all you have, as you cannot counter the point I raised. Revisionists fail at the basic tasks of any historical or criminal investigation.

[Nessie]

Nessie: "They do not know about the Topf & Sons engineer documentary and witness evidence, or that most death camp staff trials took place in West Germany."

Revisionists don't know about the Topf engineers? I supposed that's why there's a Holocaust Handbooks volume on that exact topic? You are so full of it.

And lol at Numar endorsing Nessie's nonsense. If you find yourself endorsing Nessie, it's time to reevaluate things.

I have become more active on twitter. It is incredible the ignorance people show. Twitter deniers are obsessed with gas chambers with wooden doors, Hoess being tortured and think the Nuremberg IMT were the only trials, as if that alone proves the entire Holocaust was faked. I have now linked numerous people to the Topf & Sons evidence, and it usually renders them silent. I hope many see they have been hoodwinked by lying, dishonest deniers.

[Archie]

That is because revisionists pouring over the evidence as to how the gas chambers were ventilated, or not as they often claim, is not evidence to prove the existence of gas chambers. You cannot argue something that is evidenced to have existed, out of existence. You need to evidence it did not exist. Historians gather evidence to establish what happened. Revisionists argue that in their opinion, an event did not happen, contrary to the evidence it did happen and then fail to evidence what did happen. Most historians are not interested in obviously logically flawed arguments and a non-history.

The expression is "to pore over," not "pour over."

Normally I wouldn't draw attention to such errors, but since you are bragging like an ass about your supposed education and credentials you are sort of asking for it.

It is all you have, as you cannot counter the point I raised. Revisionists fail at the basic tasks of any historical or criminal investigation.

Not many Harvard professors make those sorts of usage errors.

All of those points are ones you have made countless times before and they have been refuted many times here, on RODOH, and elsewhere. I'm not going to waste my time responding to recycled points that have already been addressed.
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=69
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=108

[Archie]

Nessie: "They do not know about the Topf & Sons engineer documentary and witness evidence, or that most death camp staff trials took place in West Germany."

Revisionists don't know about the Topf engineers? I supposed that's why there's a Holocaust Handbooks volume on that exact topic? You are so full of it.

And lol at Numar endorsing Nessie's nonsense. If you find yourself endorsing Nessie, it's time to reevaluate things.

I have become more active on twitter. It is incredible the ignorance people show. Twitter deniers are obsessed with gas chambers with wooden doors, Hoess being tortured and think the Nuremberg IMT were the only trials, as if that alone proves the entire Holocaust was faked. I have now linked numerous people to the Topf & Sons evidence, and it usually renders them silent. I hope many see they have been hoodwinked by lying, dishonest deniers.

So what? You found some casual revisionists on Twitter and this, in your confused mind, proves that no revisionists are familiar with the Topf engineers? Fallacy of composition. Go read HH52 and get back to us.

Most people have day jobs and other concerns and so they aren't going to be especially knowledgeable. This is true of both sides. I see tons of Holocaust believers that have all kinds of misconceptions. Who cares?

[Nessie]

The expression is "to pore over," not "pour over."

Normally I wouldn't draw attention to such errors, but since you are bragging like an ass about your supposed education and credentials you are sort of asking for it.

It is all you have, as you cannot counter the point I raised. Revisionists fail at the basic tasks of any historical or criminal investigation.

Not many Harvard professors make those sorts of usage errors.

All of those points are ones you have made countless times before and they have been refuted many times here, on RODOH, and elsewhere. I'm not going to waste my time responding to recycled points that have already been addressed.
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=69
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=108

Both historian and criminal investigator would gather evidence from witnesses, documents, physical items etc and produce a corroborated chronology of events to a conclusion. Revisionists do not do that. They argue why they think the evidence is too incredible, or physically impossible, to believe, therefore no gassings.

[Nessie]

Nessie: "They do not know about the Topf & Sons engineer documentary and witness evidence, or that most death camp staff trials took place in West Germany."

Revisionists don't know about the Topf engineers? I supposed that's why there's a Holocaust Handbooks volume on that exact topic? You are so full of it.

And lol at Numar endorsing Nessie's nonsense. If you find yourself endorsing Nessie, it's time to reevaluate things.

I have become more active on twitter. It is incredible the ignorance people show. Twitter deniers are obsessed with gas chambers with wooden doors, Hoess being tortured and think the Nuremberg IMT were the only trials, as if that alone proves the entire Holocaust was faked. I have now linked numerous people to the Topf & Sons evidence, and it usually renders them silent. I hope many see they have been hoodwinked by lying, dishonest deniers.

So what? You found some casual revisionists on Twitter and this, in your confused mind, proves that no revisionists are familiar with the Topf engineers? Fallacy of composition. Go read HH52 and get back to us.

I did not say no revisionist was unfamiliar with the engineers, strawman fallacy in your part.

Most people have day jobs and other concerns and so they aren't going to be especially knowledgeable. This is true of both sides. I see tons of Holocaust believers that have all kinds of misconceptions. Who cares?

Ignorance is bliss, if you want to pretend that gassing are not evidenced.

[HansHill]

2) Expertise is domain specific. A seasoned revisionist will, as a rule, know more about the details of the extermination centers than most PhD historians by a large margin.

This was evidenced quite neatly in fact by Mr Rudolf's recent debate with Mr Vann who is a historian of Genocide generally, but had to concede alot of ground to Mr Rudolf on basic details about the Holocaust, and was clearly out of his depth.