The consequences of a lack of relevant training & expertise.

[Nessie]

The consequences of a lack of relevant training & expertise are an increased likelihood of making mistakes. That is not to say non experts, or those with little expertise, cannot comment or have an opinion. It just means they need to be more self-aware and show some circumspection, rather than make confident assertions. They should be open to where they have gaps in their knowledge and be prepared to fill those gaps. Where they have no knowledge of the topic under discussion, it is probably best to leave it to the experts.

I would suggest that the three main areas that revisionists need to improve their knowledge and understanding are

1 - logical fallacies, how to identify and avoid using them.
2 - witness behaviour, memory and recollection.
3 - evidencing, chronology and corroboration.

[Nessie]

Revisionists are reluctant to deal with their lack of training and expertise.

https://wiki.codohforum.com/pages/index ... inationism

"Selective Expertise: There's an accusation that only expert opinions that align with the exterminationist view are given credence, while contributions from experts like Rudolf are marginalized or altogether ignored."

That is a misrepresentation of why some experts and accepted with a greater credence than others, probably brought about, ironically, by the author of the article's lack of training and expertise.

The selectiveness of expertise opinion is based on what is evidenced. If an expert's opinion aligns with other evidence, it has greater credence over an expert whose opinion is contrary to the evidence. Gassings are evidenced to have taken place. Deniers cannot evidence something else took place, let alone agree on what happened. That means an expert such as Rudolf is marginalised, because he has no supporting contemporaneous evidence. He does not even attempt to try and evidence what happened instead of gassings.

That is not an "exterminationist view", it is a commonly held one. Expert opinion that is backed up by other contemporaneous evidence gets greater credence than opinion which is contrary to what is evidence, and, or not supported by contemporaneous evidence.

"Inconsistencies and Falsifications: Eyewitness testimonies are criticized for being rife with inconsistencies, exaggerations, and outright falsehoods (e.g., tales of Jews surviving multiple gassings, or elevators leading to ovens). Revisionists argue that these inaccuracies should call into question the reliability of such accounts."

Revisionists actually use inconsistencies etc to call into question 100% of the witnesses, to then dismiss them all as liars, who relate falsehoods. To only find liars in relation to events that lasted years, at multiple sites, which millions of people, from numerous different countries went to and saw, is remarkable. It is coordinated lying on an industrial scale that has been perfect. No one has ever come forward with the "truth", despite it being very much in many people's, government's and country's interests to do so.

Revisionists display an ignorance of the subject of witness evidence, and the multiple studies and experiments on how memory fades and people recollect events and their use of hyperbole, figures of speech, mixing hearsay with what they saw and estimations of time, distance and sizes. Anything and everything a witness states is seized upon with an excuse to disbelieve it. When that becomes harder, as it does with the less emotive, more matter of fact Nazi testimony...

"Coercion and Motive: It's suggested that testimonies might have been given under coercion or for motives like receiving benefits, gaining immigration or asylum, or as part of a broader narrative to demonize the Germans."

Revisionists suggest they have been coerced and invariably show Hoess as an example, ignoring that the majority of A-B camp staff were tried by German courts, in Frankfurt, with no evidence of any form of coercion.

[AreYouSirius]

What training and expertise do you possess?

[Callafangers]

Revisionists are reluctant to deal with their lack of training and expertise.

https://wiki.codohforum.com/pages/index ... inationism

"Selective Expertise: There's an accusation that only expert opinions that align with the exterminationist view are given credence, while contributions from experts like Rudolf are marginalized or altogether ignored."

That is a misrepresentation of why some experts and accepted with a greater credence than others, probably brought about, ironically, by the author of the article's lack of training and expertise.

The selectiveness of expertise opinion is based on what is evidenced. If an expert's opinion aligns with other evidence, it has greater credence over an expert whose opinion is contrary to the evidence. Gassings are evidenced to have taken place. Deniers cannot evidence something else took place, let alone agree on what happened. That means an expert such as Rudolf is marginalised, because he has no supporting contemporaneous evidence. He does not even attempt to try and evidence what happened instead of gassings.

Nessie has clearly been "triggered" by this recent Wiki article, which is unfortunate (for Nessie). Rudolf's "The Chemistry of Auschwitz" remains the most comprehensive and authoritative forensic analysis of any alleged 'homicidal gas chambers' to-date. Nothing Nessie has said here (or anywhere) so much as puts a dent in Rudolf's core findings and assertions, which are meaningful and compelling in the eyes of any honest, informed, thinking person.

There is not much else to add, here.

[TlsMS93]

“[…] for any alleged human gas chamber found in a German labor camp in World War II, let’s just measure the cyanide in the walls: if it’s not there, it didn’t happen.”

Nicholas Kollerstrom

[Hektor]

What training and expertise do you possess?

That won't be really testable anyway. And I recall this being a cop-out whenever an unproven or even unprovable thesis was was pushed. The "All experts agree" and "You are not an expert". pseudo-arguments, which a knowledgeable person can easily recognize as fallacies of logic. Problem is that most laymen won't. In fact you need to be clued up with logic or even epistemology to spot those problems, something even most academics are not....

[TlsMS93]

What training and expertise do you possess?

That won't be really testable anyway. And I recall this being a cop-out whenever an unproven or even unprovable thesis was was pushed. The "All experts agree" and "You are not an expert". pseudo-arguments, which a knowledgeable person can easily recognize as fallacies of logic. Problem is that most laymen won't. In fact you need to be clued up with logic or even epistemology to spot those problems, something even most academics are not....

Most people treat science as an entity above good and evil. If the best scientists have decided that it is so, then so be it.

People simply do not like to delve into what they have been taught, they simply accept at face value what is pushed upon them. Okay, they killed 6 million, when, with what means, the logistics involved, the evidence, the budget, the infrastructure, nobody wants to know any of that.

[Nessie]

What training and expertise do you possess?

History degree and I was in the police where I was a detective for a few years and completed various witness interview courses, which is why I talk a lot about witness behaviour.

[Nessie]

...

Nessie has clearly been "triggered" by this recent Wiki article, which is unfortunate (for Nessie). Rudolf's "The Chemistry of Auschwitz" remains the most comprehensive and authoritative forensic analysis of any alleged 'homicidal gas chambers' to-date. Nothing Nessie has said here (or anywhere) so much as puts a dent in Rudolf's core findings and assertions, which are meaningful and compelling in the eyes of any honest, informed, thinking person.

There is not much else to add, here.

"The Chemistry of Auschwitz" is a sophisticated argument from incredulity. Just because he cannot work out how gassings were possible, does not therefore they did not happen.

[Nessie]

“[…] for any alleged human gas chamber found in a German labor camp in World War II, let’s just measure the cyanide in the walls: if it’s not there, it didn’t happen.”

Nicholas Kollerstrom

That is the theory. Any scientist knows that no matter how compelling the theory, it then needs to be tested. That means exposing Zyklon B to walls as found in the Kremas, replicating as closely as possible the descriptions of gassings, to see what the residue is.

[TlsMS93]

“[…] for any alleged human gas chamber found in a German labor camp in World War II, let’s just measure the cyanide in the walls: if it’s not there, it didn’t happen.”

Nicholas Kollerstrom

That is the theory. Any scientist knows that no matter how compelling the theory, it then needs to be tested. That means exposing Zyklon B to walls as found in the Kremas, replicating as closely as possible the descriptions of gassings, to see what the residue is.

But they won't let you do it and we know who, in the same way that they don't allow you to turn over the earth of these Reinhardt camps and those who decide to do it themselves, their results will not be accepted because it didn't go through peer testing or the experiment was contaminated to reach a predetermined result or it wasn't able to appear in Science or Nature.

[Nessie]

“[…] for any alleged human gas chamber found in a German labor camp in World War II, let’s just measure the cyanide in the walls: if it’s not there, it didn’t happen.”

Nicholas Kollerstrom

That is the theory. Any scientist knows that no matter how compelling the theory, it then needs to be tested. That means exposing Zyklon B to walls as found in the Kremas, replicating as closely as possible the descriptions of gassings, to see what the residue is.

But they won't let you do it and we know who, in the same way that they don't allow you to turn over the earth of these Reinhardt camps and those who decide to do it themselves, their results will not be accepted because it didn't go through peer testing or the experiment was contaminated to reach a predetermined result or it wasn't able to appear in Science or Nature.

Conspiracists excuses to dodge having to evidence a theory. All revisionists have are theories, that they cannot evidence.

[Nazgul]

That is the theory. Any scientist knows that no matter how compelling the theory, it then needs to be tested. That means exposing Zyklon B to walls as found in the Kremas, replicating as closely as possible the descriptions of gassings, to see what the residue is.

That is not a theory, it is a hypothesis. A theory is the highest order of proof possible but open to change as more evidence is exposed. The knowledge of cyanide is well known, no more tests need to be done.

[Nessie]

That is the theory. Any scientist knows that no matter how compelling the theory, it then needs to be tested. That means exposing Zyklon B to walls as found in the Kremas, replicating as closely as possible the descriptions of gassings, to see what the residue is.

That is not a theory, it is a hypothesis. A theory is the highest order of proof possible but open to change as more evidence is exposed. The knowledge of cyanide is well known, no more tests need to be done.

Revisionists have completed some testing regarding residues in the Krema I and II walls, hence it is a theory. Rudolf admits in "The Chemistry of Auschwitz" that the theory is not yet definitively proved, it may be wrong and he lists more work that is needed. But he and Leuchter are sure their theory is correct, based on their test results. The obvious further experimentation that is needed, is to replicate the conditions inside the gas chambers as best as possible and repeatedly expose to gas.

Typically for revisionists, their level of evidence gathering and academic work, is to a poor standard and that even applies to revisionists who have some training.

[Nazgul]

Revisionists have completed some testing regarding residues in the Krema I and II walls, hence it is a theory.

Typically for revisionists, their level of evidence gathering and academic work, is to a poor standard and that even applies to revisionists who have some training.

A scientific theory is a well-supported explanation of a natural phenomenon that has been tested and verified. It's based on observations and evidence, and it can be used to make predictions. When discussing science do not use the layman term of "theory". You do not understand what a "theory" is but use the layman term. You clearly have no scientific education. How can you say, with no training, no academic credentials apart from history, to state that the work is to a poor standard. Your opinion has a very low value as you have limited acumen to process such information. It reminds me of a 12 year old saying calculus is dumb when he can barely count to 10.