Logical Fallacies [Remedial education for Nessie]

[Archie]

I asked it some follow-ups.

Q: Suppose that there were a controversial leader of a country who started up a mass deportation campaign. Suppose he started rounding up illegal immigrants and deporting them. Suppose there were rumors that many of them were being killed in "death camps" along the border. But suppose that there were a lot of exaggerated atrocity stories about this which caused some doubt over exactly what happened. Suppose it were rumors that at the largest "death camp" that 500,000 immigrants were executed and cremated on pyres. But suppose others noted that cremated such a huge number on pyres would require a very large amount of wood but there's not evidence of huge amounts of wood being delivered to the location. Would that argument about the wood be an argument from incredulity fallacy?

A: No, the argument about the lack of evidence for the large amounts of wood required to cremate 500,000 people is not an argument from incredulity fallacy. Instead, it is a rational critique based on physical and logistical plausibility.

Here’s why:

Evidence-Based Skepticism:
The argument is grounded in concrete observations about the logistical requirements of cremating such a large number of people on pyres. Cremating 500,000 people would indeed require massive amounts of wood, and if there is no evidence of wood deliveries or resources to support such an operation, this raises valid doubts about the plausibility of the claim.

Not a Gut Reaction:
An argument from incredulity would occur if someone dismissed the claim solely because it seemed "too unbelievable" without considering the actual evidence or lack thereof. In this case, however, the argument is based on tangible facts, such as the amount of wood needed, the logistics of transportation, and the absence of supporting evidence.

Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence:
The claim that 500,000 people were executed and cremated on pyres is extraordinary and would require equally extraordinary evidence. If such evidence is lacking, it is reasonable to question the claim, particularly when logistical contradictions (like the absence of sufficient wood) emerge.

Logical Evaluation of Practical Feasibility:
The critique evaluates the practical feasibility of the claim within the context of known physical realities, such as how much wood is needed for cremation and whether it could plausibly have been sourced, delivered, and used without leaving evidence.

In summary, skepticism rooted in physical and logistical analysis, such as questioning the absence of necessary resources for the alleged events, is a valid and reasoned form of inquiry. It is not a fallacy because it is not based on mere incredulity but on an assessment of evidence and the lack of corroborating facts.

Q: About how much wood would it take to cremate 500,000 bodies in open air?

A: Cremating bodies in open air is an energy-intensive process, and estimating the amount of wood required for 500,000 bodies involves several variables. Here's a breakdown:

1. Wood Required per Body:
Cremation in open air typically requires approximately 300–400 kilograms (660–880 pounds) of wood per body, depending on conditions like humidity, temperature, and efficiency of the pyre.

2. Total Wood for 500,000 Bodies:
Using the average figure of 350 kilograms (770 pounds) per body, the total amount of wood would be:
500,000 bodies × 350 kg/body = 175,000,000 kg (175,000 metric tons)

3. Practical Perspective:
Volume of Wood: The density of wood varies (e.g., oak is denser than pine), but as a rough estimate, 1 cubic meter of firewood weighs about 500–600 kilograms. For 175,000 metric tons of wood, this would equate to approximately 290,000–350,000 cubic meters of wood.
Transportation: Transporting this amount of wood would require tens of thousands of truckloads, assuming a typical large truck can carry around 25 tons of wood.

4. Visualizing the Quantity:
A forested area of several square kilometers would need to be harvested to provide this amount of wood, depending on the forest density.

Conclusion:
The logistical challenges of sourcing, transporting, and burning such a vast amount of wood for open-air cremations would leave significant evidence, including deforestation, transportation records, ash residue, and other environmental signs. If no evidence of such activity is found, it would raise serious questions about the plausibility of the claim.

Lmao. Nessie, man up and admit that you are wrong about this.

[Nessie]

Here is what I mean by "real debate."

Suppose I argue: X is false for reasons A, B, C, D, E, and F.

In normal debate, if you disagree with my conclusion you would dispute my reasons and perhaps offer your own reasons for the opposite conclusion.

What you do is to say that we aren't allowed to argue that X is false because that would be incredulity and therefore you don't think you need to address any of the points raised.

I am not saying that. To make it very clear...

YOU ARE ALLOWED TO BE INCREDULOUS.

IT IS INCUMBENT ON ME TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE WHY YOUR INCREDULITY IS FALSE AND MISPLACED AND ADDRESS THE POINTS MADE.

That is why I am providing you with the evidence as to why reasons A to F are not evidence of lying, so that your argument of X is false is incorrect.

Example A, a witness claims 1000 people were crammed inside a gas chambers that was far too small to take that number of people. Revisionists use that to claim the witness has lied. I produce evidence from studies that prove people are poor at estimating the size of crowds, so it is more likely they just overestimated how many people were inside the gas chambers. The witness did not lie, they just got the number gassed wrong, because we are poor at estimating the number of people in a crowd.

Example B, a witness claims some bushwood was used to light a mass pyre of thousands of corpses. Revisionists claim that there is no way brushwood could start such a fire, so the witness is lying. I point out that the witness should not necessarily be taken literally. Brushwood is often used to start fires, it does not mean that there was no larger wood in the pyres. Anyone with real world experience of witnesses knows that they use descriptives, miss out details, and are not to be taken literally. Therefore, the revisionist claim of lying is not a definite, as it is also possible the witness description is poor and it misses out details.

Example C, Mattogno tries to work out how the Krema ovens could cremate so many corpses in an hour, based on witness claims about how many corpses were being cremated. He cannot figure it out how it was done, to his satisfaction and he concludes the witness is lying. That is pure argument from incredulity. Just because Mattogno cannot work out the calculations to his satisfaction, without doing any relevant experimentation, is not evidence to prove the witness lied. It could be that witness exaggerated how many corpses were being cremated, or they referenced one extreme time, as if that was the norm.

Example D, a witness describes a Nazi tearing children in half. That is physically impossible, but is it to be taken literally, or is it a figure of speech, like to tear a strip off someone? Could it be the witness is repeating atrocity hearsay evidence as if they saw it? The claim is not proven to be a lie, when there are other reasonable explanations.

Example E, Rudolf studies the remains of Kremas and delousing chambers at A-B and concludes the Kremas do not produce sufficient residue from Zyklon B, for there to have been repeated mass gassings. No experimentation was conducted, to test what is a theory by Rudolf. If a plastered or tiled surface is exposed to Zyklon B, for a certain period of time, so many times a week, and the surface is washed, without experimentation, we do not know how much residue would be left, to be found decades later. All Rudolf is doing is given his best opinion, based on his calculations. At most, he is providing expert opinion and no actual evidence. Since his claim is contradicted by every witness, and documentary and circumstantial evidence pertaining to the Krema operation 1943-4, his opinion is evidenced to be wrong. His incredulity is logically flawed.

Example F, a witness claims that when working at a camp, when he carried corpses to the graves, he ran the equivalent of a marathon every day. Revisionists claim that is evidence of a lie. It is an incredible claim, due to the physical effort needed. A trained and well-fed athlete would start to struggle, let alone a malnourished very day male. Studies find that when people are asked to estimate distance and time, they are poor. The results show that people are not very accurate. Therefore, rather than a lie, it is more likely that the witness over-estimated how far he ran and for how long each day.

Example G, a witness is asked when he visited a camp and he states a date that was before the camp was opened for operation. Revisionists claim that is evidence of a lie. Studies find that when people are asked to date past events, they are not very accurate. Therefore, rather than a lie, it is also possible that the witness just misremembered the date.

I can go on, but you will have got the point. It is fine for you to be incredulous, but only when your incredulity takes into account studies of witnesses and memory and the difference between theory and practice.

[Nessie]

I asked it some follow-ups.

Q: Suppose that there were a controversial leader of a country who started up a mass deportation campaign. Suppose he started rounding up illegal immigrants and deporting them. Suppose there were rumors that many of them were being killed in "death camps" along the border. But suppose that there were a lot of exaggerated atrocity stories about this which caused some doubt over exactly what happened. Suppose it were rumors that at the largest "death camp" that 500,000 immigrants were executed and cremated on pyres. But suppose others noted that cremated such a huge number on pyres would require a very large amount of wood but there's not evidence of huge amounts of wood being delivered to the location. Would that argument about the wood be an argument from incredulity fallacy?

A: No, the argument about the lack of evidence for the large amounts of wood required to cremate 500,000 people is not an argument from incredulity fallacy. Instead, it is a rational critique based on physical and logistical plausibility.

Here’s why:

Evidence-Based Skepticism:
The argument is grounded in concrete observations about the logistical requirements of cremating such a large number of people on pyres. Cremating 500,000 people would indeed require massive amounts of wood, and if there is no evidence of wood deliveries or resources to support such an operation, this raises valid doubts about the plausibility of the claim.

Not a Gut Reaction:
An argument from incredulity would occur if someone dismissed the claim solely because it seemed "too unbelievable" without considering the actual evidence or lack thereof. In this case, however, the argument is based on tangible facts, such as the amount of wood needed, the logistics of transportation, and the absence of supporting evidence.

Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence:
The claim that 500,000 people were executed and cremated on pyres is extraordinary and would require equally extraordinary evidence. If such evidence is lacking, it is reasonable to question the claim, particularly when logistical contradictions (like the absence of sufficient wood) emerge.

Logical Evaluation of Practical Feasibility:
The critique evaluates the practical feasibility of the claim within the context of known physical realities, such as how much wood is needed for cremation and whether it could plausibly have been sourced, delivered, and used without leaving evidence.

In summary, skepticism rooted in physical and logistical analysis, such as questioning the absence of necessary resources for the alleged events, is a valid and reasoned form of inquiry. It is not a fallacy because it is not based on mere incredulity but on an assessment of evidence and the lack of corroborating facts.

AI, will be influenced by how you phrase the question. Your question included, "there's not evidence of huge amounts of wood being delivered". That is ambiguous. It can mean that there is literally no evidence of deliveries, when if deliveries had happened, there would be available evidence and that evidence is not there, for which the reasonable conclusion is there were no such deliveries. Or, it can mean there is no evidence, but there is a reason why there is no evidence, as that evidence was destroyed, or no one thought to gather it by asking witnesses, so there is just a lack of evidence and wood could still have been delivered. You have suggested to AI that it is proven there were no wood deliveries, rather than just a lack of evidence of deliveries.

In fact, there is evidence of deliveries, from the witness Erwin Lambert. It also stands to reason, since wood was the primary construction material for the camps and Poland had a lot of forests, and sawmills, and the camps had train stations inside them, that the necessary wood could be delivered in bulk. If you told AI about that, its answer would be, I am sure, different.

Q: About how much wood would it take to cremate 500,000 bodies in open air?

A: Cremating bodies in open air is an energy-intensive process, and estimating the amount of wood required for 500,000 bodies involves several variables. Here's a breakdown:

1. Wood Required per Body:
Cremation in open air typically requires approximately 300–400 kilograms (660–880 pounds) of wood per body, depending on conditions like humidity, temperature, and efficiency of the pyre.

2. Total Wood for 500,000 Bodies:
Using the average figure of 350 kilograms (770 pounds) per body, the total amount of wood would be:
500,000 bodies × 350 kg/body = 175,000,000 kg (175,000 metric tons)

3. Practical Perspective:
Volume of Wood: The density of wood varies (e.g., oak is denser than pine), but as a rough estimate, 1 cubic meter of firewood weighs about 500–600 kilograms. For 175,000 metric tons of wood, this would equate to approximately 290,000–350,000 cubic meters of wood.
Transportation: Transporting this amount of wood would require tens of thousands of truckloads, assuming a typical large truck can carry around 25 tons of wood.

4. Visualizing the Quantity:
A forested area of several square kilometers would need to be harvested to provide this amount of wood, depending on the forest density.

Conclusion:
The logistical challenges of sourcing, transporting, and burning such a vast amount of wood for open-air cremations would leave significant evidence, including deforestation, transportation records, ash residue, and other environmental signs. If no evidence of such activity is found, it would raise serious questions about the plausibility of the claim.

Lmao. Nessie, man up and admit that you are wrong about this.

You have failed to tell AI,

1 - that many of the corpses were partially decomposed
2 - that witnesses reported that fatter and female corpses burned better than others
3 - about the role of Herman Floss and how he constructed the pyres
4 - about the pyres at Dresden and Ohrdruf.
5 - about archaeological finds of huge areas of buried cremated remains and ash.
6 - about Sonderaktion 1005.

You have again influenced AI to give you the answer you want to hear. What AI do you use and how does it work? I want to ask it some questions.

[Archie]

You have failed to tell AI,

1 - that many of the corpses were partially decomposed
2 - that witnesses reported that fatter and female corpses burned better than others
3 - about the role of Herman Floss and how he constructed the pyres
4 - about the pyres at Dresden and Ohrdruf.
5 - about archaeological finds of huge areas of buried cremated remains and ash.
6 - about Sonderaktion 1005.

You have again influenced AI to give you the answer you want to hear. What AI do you use and how does it work? I want to ask it some questions.

I didn't ask it about the Holocaust directly. They've put in a bunch of custom coding for the Holocaust to prevent it from answering honestly. We all know what would happen if that were removed.

I presented it with a number of arguments in different contexts where incredulity was expressed on grounds of logistical improbability, lack of evidence, contradictions, and so forth and asked if these were examples of the "argument from incredulity" fallacy. The AI correctly answered NO.

If you were consistent, you would have to say all of these examples are "fallacies." You won't because you know that would make you look foolish. So you arbitrarily say logistical arguments and so forth are invalid but only when revisionists make them.

[Nessie]

You have failed to tell AI,

1 - that many of the corpses were partially decomposed
2 - that witnesses reported that fatter and female corpses burned better than others
3 - about the role of Herman Floss and how he constructed the pyres
4 - about the pyres at Dresden and Ohrdruf.
5 - about archaeological finds of huge areas of buried cremated remains and ash.
6 - about Sonderaktion 1005.

You have again influenced AI to give you the answer you want to hear. What AI do you use and how does it work? I want to ask it some questions.

I didn't ask it about the Holocaust directly. They've put in a bunch of custom coding for the Holocaust to prevent it from answering honestly. We all know what would happen if that were removed.

You have no evidence for that. It suits you to make that assertion, to get round your problem of if you gave AI more information, it would give you an answer you do not want to hear.

I presented it with a number of arguments in different contexts where incredulity was expressed on grounds of logistical improbability, lack of evidence, contradictions, and so forth and asked if these were examples of the "argument from incredulity" fallacy. The AI correctly answered NO.

Indeed, it did, because you gave it examples that would produce that answer. You did not give it any examples where the answer would be yes, such as is it OK to be incredulous about the earth being round?

If you were consistent, you would have to say all of these examples are "fallacies." You won't because you know that would make you look foolish. So you arbitrarily say logistical arguments and so forth are invalid but only when revisionists make them.

The AI answer you liked was;

"Conclusion:
The logistical challenges of sourcing, transporting, and burning such a vast amount of wood for open-air cremations would leave significant evidence, including deforestation, transportation records, ash residue, and other environmental signs. If no evidence of such activity is found, it would raise serious questions about the plausibility of the claim."

You are glossing over that AI did not conclude such mass pyres were a physical impossibility. Instead, it said that pyres on that scale would involve "challenges", but it accepts they are possible.

The AI has then calculated cremations based on "approximately 300–400 kilograms (660–880 pounds) of wood per body" and then multiplied that by 500,000 bodies. That is the result if there had been 500,000 individual, separate "per body" cremations. It has not worked out a mass pyre, where bodies are being cremated together. I suspect that is because it cannot find any detailed examples of mass pyres of corpses and how much wood they used. It can only find individual "per body" information.

The AI answer discusses "several variables" but it misses out the variable of how does a partially decomposed corpse cremate, compared to a newly dead one? It has also missed out the variable of potential economies of scale, by cremating corpses together at the same time, on one big pyre, rather than "per body". That would reduce the amount of wood and transports needed.

Then there is the issue of evidence. You believe that there is no evidence. AI talks about "no evidence" and that if mass cremations took place, it would leave "significant evidence". AI's answer would be different if it was told there was significant evidence, and it would say that it is not logical to consider something that is well evidenced, as implausible. There is also the issue of destruction of evidence. If you tell AI that there was an active effort to destroy evidence, then the no evidence becomes less problematic. There would be no significant deforestation if wood is sourced from multiple sources not all in the same place. There would be no transportation records if they are destroyed in a cover-up. There are site surveys that have found large areas of ash residue and cremains.

Revisionist incredulity over the mass pyres is flawed, because of the evidence they happened and the cover-up. You think your incredulity is justified, because you believe there is no evidence and there was no cover-up.

[Archie]

I asked it one about the moon landing hoax theories.

Q: Suppose I am arguing with someone who says the moon landing was a hoax. If they argue that the photos are fake because the shadows are wrong, would that be an argument from incredulity fallacy?

A: If someone argues that the moon landing photos are fake because "the shadows are wrong," it is not inherently an argument from incredulity fallacy. However, it might reflect a misunderstanding of physics or optics rather than a logical fallacy. Here’s the distinction:

Why It’s Not Automatically a Fallacy
If the person points to specific details about the shadows (e.g., they appear inconsistent with a single light source), they are making a claim that can be evaluated and tested. This is an argument that, while potentially flawed in its reasoning or based on incorrect assumptions, isn’t simply "I can't believe it, so it’s false."
When It Could Be an Argument from Incredulity
If their reasoning stops at "the shadows look weird to me, so the photos must be fake" without engaging with possible explanations, this shifts into the territory of an argument from incredulity. Here, disbelief arises solely because the shadows don't align with their intuitive expectations, without considering scientific explanations.
Why the Shadows Actually Appear "Weird"
The apparent inconsistencies in shadows in moon landing photos can be explained by:

Uneven Terrain: Shadows may seem to diverge or converge because of the uneven lunar surface, which affects the direction of shadows.
Multiple Light Sources: While the Sun is the primary light source, the lunar surface can reflect light, creating secondary illumination that subtly affects shadow angles.
Wide-Angle Lenses: Camera lenses used on the Moon distort perspective, making shadows appear to diverge or bend in photos.
These phenomena are well-documented and consistent with the physics of light and photography.

Engaging in the Argument
To respond, it’s helpful to:

Acknowledge their observation and explain the science behind the shadows.
Demonstrate that their claim about "wrong shadows" stems from misunderstanding rather than evidence of a hoax.
Emphasize that genuine skepticism should involve investigating plausible explanations before concluding deception.
In short, while the claim about shadows isn’t inherently fallacious, it often reflects an intuitive misunderstanding rather than a deliberate logical error. If they reject scientific explanations outright without consideration, their argument might verge into an argument from incredulity.

Oh, look. You're wrong again.

You seem to think that any conclusion that you disagree has to be a "fallacy." That's wrong. It is more common for there to be a flawed premise, incorrect or limited data, etc.

Q: Does an incorrect conclusion necessarily imply a fallacy?

A: No, an incorrect conclusion does not necessarily imply a fallacy. A fallacy refers to a flaw in the reasoning process, while an incorrect conclusion can result from other factors, such as incomplete information, incorrect assumptions, or even random chance. It's important to distinguish between bad reasoning and reasonable reasoning that leads to the wrong result.

Key Distinctions
Fallacious Reasoning:

A fallacy occurs when the argument’s logic is flawed, regardless of whether the conclusion is true or false.
Example: Appeal to Authority – "A famous actor says this medicine works, so it must work." Even if the medicine is effective, the reasoning is fallacious because the actor’s opinion isn’t reliable evidence.

Non-Fallacious but Incorrect Reasoning:

An argument can follow proper logical principles but still lead to a wrong conclusion if the premises are false or incomplete.
Example: "All swans are white. This bird is not white, so it cannot be a swan." The logic is valid, but the conclusion is incorrect because the premise (all swans are white) is false.
Correct Conclusion by Fallacious Means:

A conclusion can be correct, but the reasoning used to arrive at it may still be fallacious.
Example: "The weather forecast says it will rain tomorrow, and my horoscope agrees, so it will rain." The conclusion might be accurate, but the horoscope is not a valid reason.

Errors from Incomplete Data:

A person might reasonably draw an incorrect conclusion based on insufficient evidence, without committing a fallacy.
Example: "I didn’t see anyone at the store; it must be closed." This is a reasonable inference but could be wrong if the store is open and just happens to be empty.

Conclusion
An incorrect conclusion may result from:

Fallacious reasoning (a flaw in logic).
False premises or incomplete data (without a logical error).
Random chance or other factors unrelated to reasoning.
It’s crucial to analyze how the conclusion was reached to determine if a fallacy was involved. Fallacies are about the quality of reasoning, not just the truth or falsity of the conclusion.

[Nessie]

From the last page;

Q: Is there a fallacy called argument from incredulity?

A: Yes, the argument from incredulity (also known as the appeal to incredulity) is indeed recognized as a logical fallacy. It occurs when someone dismisses or rejects an argument or claim simply because they find it difficult to believe or understand, rather than on the basis of evidence or logical reasoning. The idea is that if something seems implausible or complex, it must not be true, which isn’t a valid basis for evaluating truth or validity.

Just because something is implausible, does not therefore mean it did not happen. You and AI accept that mass gassings and pyres are a possibility. They are not beyond the physical ability of the Germans to do, but they would be difficult to achieve. So, you are reliant on plausibility, not impossibility. AI says;

When It Could Be an Argument from Incredulity
If their reasoning stops at "the shadows look weird to me, so the photos must be fake" without engaging with possible explanations, this shifts into the territory of an argument from incredulity. Here, disbelief arises solely because the shadows don't align with their intuitive expectations, without considering scientific explanations.

You refuse to engage with possible explanations for why the witnesses appear implausible, such as they made mistakes, exaggerated, used figures of speech or hyperbole, made erroneous estimations regarding sizes or distances, misremembered dates or times and mixed hearsay with what they saw. Revisionists reject the claims about mass gassing and pyres, based on their arguments that they are implausible as described, therefore the witnesses lied, whereas there are scientific studies about witnesses, recall and memory that explain their descriptions. You have shifted into the territory of argument from incredulity.

It’s crucial to analyze how the conclusion was reached to determine if a fallacy was involved. Fallacies are about the quality of reasoning, not just the truth or falsity of the conclusion.

Revisionists reach the remarkable conclusion that 100% of witnesses lied, as they cannot produce a single witness from the death camps, who they say is being truthful about seeing gassings, or the gas chambers. Why do you not ask AI about how plausible that is, when around 2.5 million people saw inside the AR camps, Chelmno and the A-B Kremas? They then conclude that instead of being gassed, millions of Jews were resettled in the east by 1944, without evidence of that happening. They lie about and misrepresent the volume of evidence for gassings and pyres, whilst ignoring the lack of evidence for resettlement. When they do try to evidence what happened, they come up with very different claims, from the Kremas were bomb shelters, to delousing chambers, to showers, to corpse stores. It is not just the quality of reasoning that is poor, it is their ability to evidence claims.

[Archie]

You refuse to engage with possible explanations for why the witnesses appear implausible, such as they made mistakes, exaggerated, used figures of speech or hyperbole, made erroneous estimations regarding sizes or distances, misremembered dates or times and mixed hearsay with what they saw. Revisionists reject the claims about mass gassing and pyres, based on their arguments that they are implausible as described, therefore the witnesses lied, whereas there are scientific studies about witnesses, recall and memory that explain their descriptions. You have shifted into the territory of argument from incredulity.

If there is disagreement over the particulars of witness testimony, that must be settled by detailed arguments and discussion. It can't be settled by LAZY and CONFUSED mumbling about fallacies. STOP WASTING EVERYONE'S TIME with this rubbish and let's get down to business.

[Nessie]

You refuse to engage with possible explanations for why the witnesses appear implausible, such as they made mistakes, exaggerated, used figures of speech or hyperbole, made erroneous estimations regarding sizes or distances, misremembered dates or times and mixed hearsay with what they saw. Revisionists reject the claims about mass gassing and pyres, based on their arguments that they are implausible as described, therefore the witnesses lied, whereas there are scientific studies about witnesses, recall and memory that explain their descriptions. You have shifted into the territory of argument from incredulity.

If there is disagreement over the particulars of witness testimony, that must be settled by detailed arguments and discussion. It can't be settled by LAZY and CONFUSED mumbling about fallacies. STOP WASTING EVERYONE'S TIME with this rubbish and let's get down to business.

You are dodging so many points I have made and that AI is not agreeing with you the way you think it is!

By business, you mean you tell me why you think 100% of the witnesses variously lied about gassings, mass cremations, mass graves and pyres, because of their implausible, incredible descriptions. I then point out that those witnesses are corroborated by each other and other evidence, which is a far more reliable method for determining truthfulness than your biased opinion. It is the method used by historians, lawyers, journalists and other investigators and ignored by revisionists.

You are the one who is lazy and confused, by refusing to learn about the studies of witnesses, memory and recall and your confusion over what is a logically flawed argument.

[Nazgul]

You are the one who is lazy and confused, by refusing to learn about the studies of witnesses, memory and recall and your confusion over what is a logically flawed argument.

One does not say every time, that something is logically flawed. This is a forum equivalence of some conspiracy theory. You saying something is logically flawed is in reality logically flawed. You do not identify the error in reasoning in most cases. Anyhow, using a logical fallacy doesn't necessarily mean someone is wrong.

Your error is the argument from fallacy. The argument from fallacy, also known as the fallacy fallacy is the assumption that, if a particular argument for a "conclusion" is fallacious, then the conclusion by itself is false.

You also use the fallacy of Kettle logic by using multiple, jointly inconsistent arguments to defend a position. link

There are multiple examples of this, where the joint arguments end up being discussed by others and derailing threads. I realise that you are defending a world view, we are trying to examine history in detail; you have been invited to join in and disagree on specific elements. Your crying fallacies at every opportunity is seen by some (been_there) as you having limited intellect, others see it as trolling. I think as you said at "Klown's" you just respond while listening to music in the evening with headphones on without really examining the arguments. If so that is trolling. What you are doing is just poking tongues at opponents who may have better evidence than you.

If we find evidence that support your world view, we will be the first ones to stand up and say, 'By crikey Nessie was right'. You have the false perception that we are biased. BT is not biased, neither is Gibson, PR, nor I. Like police investigating something we have to turn over every stone and reach a conclusion. Poking tongues at us helps not one iota. Until then let us just discuss the issues without the side show of your view of logic. You have had minimal training in logic. I have had arduous years in it, but still make errors. As Archie said in different words, "lets get on with this critical examination of the holocoaust". I use that term as it means genocide which is different to mass murder.

[Nessie]

You are the one who is lazy and confused, by refusing to learn about the studies of witnesses, memory and recall and your confusion over what is a logically flawed argument.

One does not say every time, that something is logically flawed. This is a forum equivalence of some conspiracy theory. You saying something is logically flawed is in reality logically flawed. You do not identify the error in reasoning in most cases. Anyhow, using a logical fallacy doesn't necessarily mean someone is wrong.

Your error is the argument from fallacy. The argument from fallacy, also known as the fallacy fallacy is the assumption that, if a particular argument for a "conclusion" is fallacious, then the conclusion by itself is false.

You have plagiarised that from Wikipedia;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

"Argument from fallacy is the formal fallacy of analyzing an argument and inferring that, since it contains a fallacy, its conclusion must be false.[1] It is also called argument to logic (argumentum ad logicam), the fallacy fallacy..."

I have repeatedly explained why your fallacious arguments are wrong, as they contradict what is evidenced to have happened and you cannot back up your claims with evidence. The most striking example of that, is revisionists cannot name one single witness who worked inside an AR camp, Chelmno or A-B Krema who states they were not used for gassings. Instead, 100% of those witnesses speak to gassings taking place.

You also use the fallacy of Kettle logic by using multiple, jointly inconsistent arguments to defend a position. link

There are multiple examples of this,

So why do you fail to produce any?

... where the joint arguments end up being discussed by others and derailing threads. I realise that you are defending a world view, we are trying to examine history in detail; you have been invited to join in and disagree on specific elements. Your crying fallacies at every opportunity is seen by some (been_there) as you having limited intellect, others see it as trolling. I think as you said at "Klown's" you just respond while listening to music in the evening with headphones on without really examining the arguments. If so that is trolling. What you are doing is just poking tongues at opponents who may have better evidence than you.

I refer to fallacies a lot, because revisionists use them a lot, in their arguments. Revisionists cannot evidence what happened, they can only theorise and argue, and they are not very good at that.

If we find evidence that support your world view, we will be the first ones to stand up and say, 'By crikey Nessie was right'. You have the false perception that we are biased. BT is not biased, neither is Gibson, PR, nor I. Like police investigating something we have to turn over every stone and reach a conclusion. Poking tongues at us helps not one iota. Until then let us just discuss the issues without the side show of your view of logic. You have had minimal training in logic. I have had arduous years in it, but still make errors. As Archie said in different words, "lets get on with this critical examination of the holocoaust". I use that term as it means genocide which is different to mass murder.

Since the existing evidence does not convince you, there is no way any new evidence would. You want to spout your theories and arguments, without challenge, as if you can theorise and argue the Holocaust did not happen, without bothering with evidence.

[Nazgul]

You have plagiarised that from Wikipedia;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

"Argument from fallacy is the formal fallacy of analyzing an argument and inferring that, since it contains a fallacy, its conclusion must be false.[1] It is also called argument to logic (argumentum ad logicam), the fallacy fallacy..."

I cannot be bothered with your convoluted argument. I wrote:

Your error is the argument from fallacy. The argument from fallacy, also known as the fallacy fallacy is the assumption that, if a particular argument for a "conclusion" is fallacious, then the conclusion by itself is false.

You also use the fallacy of Kettle logic by using multiple, jointly inconsistent arguments to defend a position. link

Note the link there. Duh. Keep of that 'mountain dew" Nessie.

[Nessie]

You have plagiarised that from Wikipedia;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

"Argument from fallacy is the formal fallacy of analyzing an argument and inferring that, since it contains a fallacy, its conclusion must be false.[1] It is also called argument to logic (argumentum ad logicam), the fallacy fallacy..."

I cannot be bothered with your convoluted argument. I wrote:

You also use the fallacy of Kettle logic by using multiple, jointly inconsistent arguments to defend a position. link

Note the link there. Duh. Keep of that 'mountain dew" Nessie.

You plagiarised that directly from the link;

"Kettle logic – using multiple, jointly inconsistent arguments to defend a position."

Copying what you find on Wikipedia, suggests you do not really understand. You say I use kettle logic, but then you fail to explain why, or give any examples.

[Nazgul]

Copying what you find on Wikipedia, suggests you do not really understand. You say I use kettle logic, but then you fail to explain why, or give any examples.

This is the exact point. I am trying to explain to you and then in some weird reversal you say I do not understand. This is pure trolling.
I understand perfectly, it is you who fails to understand. You claim you know logic but you do not. The stuff on Wiki is what is already well known. I said:

There are multiple examples of this, where the joint arguments end up being discussed by others and derailing threads.

Example being the Fplo discussion where you instantly revert to witnesses without discussing the Fplo. You then said:

You plagiarised that directly from the link;

You either fail to understand the word plagiarism or misusing it. I think the former. Using web sources plagiarism is defined as:

the act of taking someone else's ideas, words, or work and presenting it as your own without giving proper credit.

Giving a link means that I am not presenting the material as my own work, but quoting to save time. What you are saying is malicious.

Copying what you find on Wikipedia, suggests you do not really understand. You say I use kettle logic, but then you fail to explain why, or give any examples.

Examples were given, many of them, in the last RODOH where there were a huge number of contradictory arguments given by you, collated and presented to the forum. Scott has saved that part of the forum and I will ask him to send the posts made by the poster to me.

[Archie]

Nessie has been placed under moderation.