Revisionism's flawed methodology

[Nessie]

The logical fallacy of argument from incredulity applies to corpses on pyres and not Santa, because the pyres are well within the realms of what is possible, based on examples of other pyres and what will set a corpse alight, whereas the claims about Santa are physically impossible to achieve. You are using a second logical fallacy of false comparison, as you are comparing what is possible, with what is not.

Nessie, you need to do better than this if you want to post here. Your arguments are too generic. The purpose of this forum is to debate the evidence. You're not doing that.

I, much to you and indeed all revisionist's irritation, point out the flaws in how you debate the evidence.

You're just making one sweeping assertion after another. "Burning corpses on pyres is possible. Therefore 1.5M people were burned on pyres at the AR camps." Nobody claims that burning corpses is impossible. But you aren't claiming a few bodies. You are claiming millions of bodies were burned. You are trying to settle the forensic problems without doing any calculations or science, and you are trying to settle the witness critique issues without analyzing any testimony. Unacceptable. All you do is invoke overly broad rules/overly vague arguments that you made up and cite these over and over as grounds to dismiss revisionist conclusions out of hand.

What you call forensic problems and analysing the testimony, is just a series of reasons for you to disbelieve the testimony, in a pseudo-scientific argument from incredulity. Just because you cannot scientifically work out, or have explained to you in a way that you find convincing, how the pyres operated, does not therefore mean there were no mass pyres.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/log ... ncredulity

The revisionist argument of the witness claims are too incredible to believe, is as faulty as me arguing that because I believe the witnesses, therefore there were mass pyres.

I use the far more reliable and credible method of analysing witness evidence, by assessing it against other contemporaneous evidence, such as documents and archaeological finds, with consideration to the studies of witnesses, memory and recall. If a witness describes a pyre in a way that is exaggerated, hyperbolic and frankly unbelievable, but they are corroborated, then that means they are telling the truth, but their description is not reliable. They are not a credible witness, but they are telling the truth about mass pyres.

It is merely an exercise to work out how the pyres operated, but, since the evidence is limited to some poor descriptions, there is no other evidence such as a film of a pyre being set and fired and no comparable examples from elsewhere in the world, nothing definitive or evidential can be determined.

It would be an interesting exercise to give an independent relevant expert, such as a fire investigator, the witness statements and ask if they think the claims of huge mass pyres are possible. But, even if they concluded that they were not, that is not evidence to prove the witnesses lied and there were no such mass pyres.

The Santa example is extreme, but there's no reason we can't use similar techniques and reasoning (e.g., basic arithmetic) to analyze and reject other claims, whether they are outright impossible or merely wildly implausible. That something is conceivably possible does not mean it's true.. If you tell me that you are 8 feet tall, that is not strictly impossible. There are humans who have been that tall. But it is exceedingly rare. The probability that you would be lying would be vastly greater than the probability that you are really 8 feet tall. So it is rational and justified to reject the claim and to only revise that conclusion once we are presented with sufficient evidence to the contrary.

If evidence is then provided to show that I am 7 feet tall, that would mean I did lie about being 8 feet tall, but I am still far taller than average. I am not a reliable or credible witness, but I am telling the truth that I am very tall, way over average. A lot of the testimony about the pyres appears exaggerated and is sensational. That does not mean all the witnesses lied about huge mass pyres. It just means we lack a reliable description of exactly how the pyres were set and worked.

Historically, what is more important, is whether there is evidence to prove mass pyres happened. The answer is yes, there is a lot of corroborating evidence. Witnesses, from those who worked inside the camps, to local people who reported many months of the smell of burning and smoke. The forensic and archaeological evidence of large areas of disturbed ground containing cremated remains. The circumstantial evidence of the Nazis wanting to cover up what they had done and Jews for whom all record of their existence ends inside the camps.

[Archie]

Nessie: We have to judge the witnesses by truthfulness and corroboration.

Me: Agreed! Revisionists do that and when we compare the Holocaust testimonies and confessions to known facts, the witnesses FAIL, especially on the parts we are most interested in.

Nessie: No, that doesn't count because errors, no matter how egregious, are "normal witness behavior."

Omg. Nessie is literally saying we need to test for truthfulness but that if the witnesses fail, i.e, the statement is false, it doesn't matter because "errors are normal."

Obviously, there has a point at which the errors are major enough that we have to reject or heavily discount the statement. If not, then your "methodology" is rigged to ALWAYS ACCEPT THE WITNESS TESTIMONY which is obviously absurd.

Look, if you want to have a debate about whether a particular testimony is sound or not, let's do it. You can argue SPECIFICALLY why should take whatever testimony seriously and why you think any errors are minor. And I can argue why the errors are significant. That's how it's done, with specifics. You can't just say errors do not matter as a general rule. That is ridiculous.

Let's look at an example. Rudolf Vrba, a star Auschwitz witness, claimed that he saw Himmler visit Auschwitz in early 1943 for the debut of the new gas chambers. However, Himmler, being a very prominent official, has a very well-documented calendar and it is known for certain that Himmler did not visit Auschwitz at that time. Yet Vrba describes this visit of Himmler for I believe around 3 pages in his book. In my opinion, this is an obvious FAIL. Do you concede this? Or are you going to say Vrba is still a truthful witness because errors don't matter?

[Archie]

What you call forensic problems and analysing the testimony, is just a series of reasons for you to disbelieve the testimony, in a pseudo-scientific argument from incredulity. Just because you cannot scientifically work out, or have explained to you in a way that you find convincing, how the pyres operated, does not therefore mean there were no mass pyres.

Anytime you reject a testimony, you are giving "a series of reasons to disbelieve the testimony." The question is whether the reasons given are good reasons or bad reasons. You are saying we aren't allowed to give reasons.

What this Nessie guy is doing is he is using circular reasoning and arbitrary criteria to say revisionism is automatically wrong but without engaging in any specifics. Because he knows how it will go if he gets into specifics. This is why he likes to talk about this "methodology" wankery instead of rigorously examining the evidence. He doesn't like analyzing evidence because "revisionists will just come up with excuses (read: facts and logic) to reject the Holocaust evidence."

[Nessie]

Nessie: We have to judge the witnesses by truthfulness and corroboration.

Me: Agreed! Revisionists do that and when we compare the Holocaust testimonies and confessions to known facts, the witnesses FAIL, especially on the parts we are most interested in.

Revisionism does not use corroboration, a neutral evidence led method to determine truthfulness. Instead, revisionism uses the logically flawed argument from incredulity, led by their opinion.

For example, you critiqued Hoess because he said he visited Treblinka before it was opened. You suggest he was not being truthful, but you present no evidence from any other source to back up your claim. For example, a senior member of staff at TII who states Hoess never visited. That would be evidence to dispute Hoess never went to the camp. You rely on your opinion, that someone who had been to the camp would remember the date, rather than evidence from another source.

If I ask you to provide two pieces of evidence, such as a Jew and Nazi who worked at TII, or one such witness and a document, to prove what happened inside the camp, you are unable to. You do not use corroboratiuve evidence.

Nessie: No, that doesn't count because errors, no matter how egregious, are "normal witness behavior."

Omg. Nessie is literally saying we need to test for truthfulness but that if the witnesses fail, i.e, the statement is false, it doesn't matter because "errors are normal."

I did not say "no matter how egregious", you exaggerate. When you critiqued Hoess you gave your opinion that he is not being truthful because his death toll was too high and he got the time he visited TII wrong. Where are your supporting studies of witness behaviour and memory, that support your claim making errors about size and dates prove lying?

Obviously, there has a point at which the errors are major enough that we have to reject or heavily discount the statement. If not, then your "methodology" is rigged to ALWAYS ACCEPT THE WITNESS TESTIMONY which is obviously absurd.

When you say my methodology, you actually mean the corroboration methodology used by all historians, lawyers, journalists and the police to determine truthfulness.

Hoess stating that 3 million were exterminated at A-B, when evidentially it has been established that about 1 million died, is at a point where the error is suspect. But, there is corroborating evidence that a lot of people died and many of them were gassed. Hoess is corroborated, but his 3 million claim is not credible or that believable. See what I mean about credibility and truthfulness? Hoess is not credible, but corroborating evidence establishes he is being truthful about mass murder taking place at the camp.

Look, if you want to have a debate about whether a particular testimony is sound or not, let's do it. You can argue SPECIFICALLY why should take whatever testimony seriously and why you think any errors are minor. And I can argue why the errors are significant. That's how it's done, with specifics. You can't just say errors do not matter as a general rule. That is ridiculous.

When you argue, you use your personal opinion, with no means to remove bias, and without acknowledging the studies and known flaws with witness evidence. You take the flaws, and use them to discredit every single witness, which leaves you with no witnesses at all. Think about that. Hundreds worked at and over a million people went inside the AR camps and you cannot produce one single witness. That is evidence to prove your methodology is flawed, as it has assessed everyone to be a liar.

Let's look at an example. Rudolf Vrba, a star Auschwitz witness, claimed that he saw Himmler visit Auschwitz in early 1943 for the debut of the new gas chambers. However, Himmler, being a very prominent official, has a very well-documented calendar and it is known for certain that Himmler did not visit Auschwitz at that time. Yet Vrba describes this visit of Himmler for I believe around 3 pages in his book. In my opinion, this is an obvious FAIL. Do you concede this? Or are you going to say Vrba is still a truthful witness because errors don't matter?

It is a fail, of memory. Like Hoess, he got a date wrong. There is evidence to prove Himmler did visit the camp, so that proves Vrba is not lying about that, he got the date wrong. People forget and misremember dates. There are plenty of studies about memory and dates, for example;

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog ... ering-when

"Unless a memory contains a mental image of a calendar, the exact date is not directly represented in memory."

If you get a date wrong, does that prove you are a liar and that nothing you say can be trusted? The answer is no. It just means you are like the vast majority of people, including Hoess and Vrba, and you do not have a great memory for dates. When you say "In my opinion, this is an obvious FAIL", I am countering you with evidence from the scientific study of memory and evidence to corroborate that the visits happened. That is my point 3 from the OP.

[Nessie]

What you call forensic problems and analysing the testimony, is just a series of reasons for you to disbelieve the testimony, in a pseudo-scientific argument from incredulity. Just because you cannot scientifically work out, or have explained to you in a way that you find convincing, how the pyres operated, does not therefore mean there were no mass pyres.

Anytime you reject a testimony, you are giving "a series of reasons to disbelieve the testimony." The question is whether the reasons given are good reasons or bad reasons. You are saying we aren't allowed to give reasons.

I explained in the OP, why revisionism gives bad reasons for rejecting all the testimony.

What this Nessie guy is doing is he is using circular reasoning and arbitrary criteria to say revisionism is automatically wrong but without engaging in any specifics. Because he knows how it will go if he gets into specifics.

I have engaged with specifics with both Hoess and Vrba. You say their testimony should be dismissed because they got dates wrong for camp visits. I have produced evidence to prove people are not good at remembering dates and that the camp visits did happen, which means it is wrong to dismiss their evidence. Let us discuss why your methodology produces the incredible result that every single person who worked at, or otherwise went inside an AR camp, Chelmno or A-B Krema, is, according to you, not telling the truth about what happening inside those places. A methodology of witness assessment, that results in no witnesses at all, is clearly flawed.

You claim I use circular reasoning and arbitrary criteria, but you refuse to be specific and give an example.

This is why he likes to talk about this "methodology" wankery instead of rigorously examining the evidence.

You cannot rigorously examine testimony, with flawed methodology.

He doesn't like analyzing evidence because "revisionists will just come up with excuses (read: facts and logic) to reject the Holocaust evidence."

I will happily go into specifics. I just did with Vrba and Hoess and the dates of camp visits. I have had many detailed discussions about witness testimony over the years, where revisionists, like you give their "opinion" and I point out that their "opinion" is not rigorous examination, it is flawed.

[Archie]

"I will happily go into specifics. I just did with Vrba and Hoess and the dates of camp visits."

And your attempted analysis reveals your total incompetence and bias.

On Hoess, you said that he "got the dates wrong" and "got the number wrong."

I was ordered to establish extermination facilities at Auschwitz in June 1941. At that time there were already in the general government three other extermination camps, BELZEC, TREBLINKA and WOLZEK. These camps were under the Einsatzkommando of the Security Police and SD. I visited Treblinka to find out how they carried out their exterminations. The Camp Commandant at Treblinka told me that he had liquidated 80,000 in the course of one-half year. He was principally concerned with liquidating all the Jews from the Warsaw Ghetto. He used monoxide gas and I did not think that his methods were very efficient. So when I set up the extermination building at Auschwitz, I used Cyclon B, which was crystallized Prussic Acid which we dropped into the death chamber from a small opening. It took from 3 to 15 minutes to kill the people in the death chamber depending upon climatic conditions.

Another improvement we made over Treblinka was that we built our gas chambers to accommodate 2,000 people at one time, whereas at Treblinka their 10 gas chambers only accommodated 200 people each. The way we selected our victims was as follows: we had two SS doctors on duty at Auschwitz to examine the incoming transports of prisoners. The prisoners would be marched by one of the doctors who would make spot decisions as they walked by. Those who were fit for work were sent into the Camp. Others were sent immediately to the extermination plants. Children of tender years were invariably exterminated since by reason of their youth they were unable to work. Still another improvement we made over Treblinka was that at Treblinka the victims almost always knew that they were to be exterminated and at Auschwitz we endeavored to fool the victims into thinking that they were to go through a delousing process.

Deportations to Treblinka began on July 23, 1942. If it had been operating for "one-half year" that would push us into January of 1943 at the earliest. Hoess, in his statement, says Treblinka was in operation in 1941 which is two full years off. Even if we shift the June 1941 date by one full year (as is typically assumed), to June 1942, this is still before exterminations are said to have begun at Treblinka. There is more than a problem a dates here because Hoess says that we went to Treblinka to study their extermination process and then designed Auschwitz to be a bigger and better extermination camp. But exterminations had already supposedly started in Auschwitz in 1942 (Zyklon, the bunkers, plans for the Birkenau kremas). This is not just "bad with dates." These are anachronisms.

And as for the 3M number, against, there is more going on there that Hoess being "bad with numbers." He was the camp commandant. He should have had some approximate idea. But not only is that number way off, that ludicrous scale is typical of the 1945-1946 propaganda where wildly inflated numbers were the norm. And that suggests contamination of the testimony, another concept that you don't understand. The 3M figure was first extracted from Hoess during his first interrogation in March 1946.

On Vrba, your analysis is even more incompetent. It is known that Himmler visited Auschwitz in the summer of 1942. Vrba says early 1943, so you say "oh, just bad with dates, he still passes the truth test." But you are ignoring that Vrba doesn't merely say Himmler visited the camp. He says Himmler visited the camp for the inauguration of the new gas chambers in early 1943 and describes in detail how Himmler looked through the peephole with glee during the gassing. THAT IS NOT BEING BAD WITH DATES. THAT IS FABRICATING AN ELABORATE FICTIONAL SCENARIO. THAT IS TYPICAL BEHAVIOR FOR A NOVELIST, NOT A WITNESS. THAT IS NOT A MINOR, ROUTINE LAPSE IN MEMORY.

[Nessie]

"I will happily go into specifics. I just did with Vrba and Hoess and the dates of camp visits."

And your attempted analysis reveals your total incompetence and bias.

I linked to evidence regarding how poor people are remembering dates and remove bias by letting corroborating evidence determine what happened. Yet again, you attack the standard, commonly used methods to research history, rather than explain and evidence why your opinion led method is more reliable.

On Hoess, you said that he "got the dates wrong" and "got the number wrong."

Yes. There is plenty of research to show how common that is. If you were asked to remember dates and make estimations during an interview, and you got those details wrong, would that make you a liar?

Where are the studies to support your claims? I don't have to assert people are poor at remembering dates, I can link to evidence they are.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10 ... 21.1918174

"Research has clearly shown that adults are often quite poor at identifying dates for their memories"

"For both adults and children, a common dating error is telescoping, which can be either forward or backward. In forward telescoping, one believes that the date of event occurrence is chronologically later than it actually was. It is as if one is looking through a telescope at the target event and it appears to be closer in time. In backward telescoping, the reverse happens: one believes that the event occurred farther in the past than it actually did, i.e., more chronologically remote. These errors are relatively common in adults"

Prove to me that is wrong. Unless you can do that, your following assertions are just your opinion.

I was ordered to establish extermination facilities at Auschwitz in June 1941. At that time there were already in the general government three other extermination camps, BELZEC, TREBLINKA and WOLZEK. These camps were under the Einsatzkommando of the Security Police and SD. I visited Treblinka to find out how they carried out their exterminations. The Camp Commandant at Treblinka told me that he had liquidated 80,000 in the course of one-half year. He was principally concerned with liquidating all the Jews from the Warsaw Ghetto. He used monoxide gas and I did not think that his methods were very efficient. So when I set up the extermination building at Auschwitz, I used Cyclon B, which was crystallized Prussic Acid which we dropped into the death chamber from a small opening. It took from 3 to 15 minutes to kill the people in the death chamber depending upon climatic conditions.

Another improvement we made over Treblinka was that we built our gas chambers to accommodate 2,000 people at one time, whereas at Treblinka their 10 gas chambers only accommodated 200 people each. The way we selected our victims was as follows: we had two SS doctors on duty at Auschwitz to examine the incoming transports of prisoners. The prisoners would be marched by one of the doctors who would make spot decisions as they walked by. Those who were fit for work were sent into the Camp. Others were sent immediately to the extermination plants. Children of tender years were invariably exterminated since by reason of their youth they were unable to work. Still another improvement we made over Treblinka was that at Treblinka the victims almost always knew that they were to be exterminated and at Auschwitz we endeavored to fool the victims into thinking that they were to go through a delousing process.

Deportations to Treblinka began on July 23, 1942. If it had been operating for "one-half year" that would push us into January of 1943 at the earliest. Hoess, in his statement, says Treblinka was in operation in 1941 which is two full years off. Even if we shift the June 1941 date by one full year (as is typically assumed), to June 1942, this is still before exterminations are said to have begun at Treblinka. There is more than a problem a dates here because Hoess says that we went to Treblinka to study their extermination process and then designed Auschwitz to be a bigger and better extermination camp. But exterminations had already supposedly started in Auschwitz in 1942 (Zyklon, the bunkers, plans for the Birkenau kremas). This is not just "bad with dates." These are anachronisms.

That is merely your opinion, driven by your desire to disbelieve, with no supporting evidence that people, especially under pressure, as Hoess was, are normally good at remembering dates.

And as for the 3M number, against, there is more going on there that Hoess being "bad with numbers." He was the camp commandant. He should have had some approximate idea. But not only is that number way off, that ludicrous scale is typical of the 1945-1946 propaganda where wildly inflated numbers were the norm. And that suggests contamination of the testimony, another concept that you don't understand. The 3M figure was first extracted from Hoess during his first interrogation in March 1946.

Hoess could have had the 3 million figure quoted at him, the contamination you refer to, and he just repeated it, which is a known phenomenon, where interviewees are influenced by and will repeat what interviewers say. It is often referred to as "mirroring", which he is likely to have done to take pressure off himself and please his interrogators.

Or, he was using an exaggerated figure he remembered, whilst under pressure during the interview. There is evidence Nazi commanders exaggerated their totals and achievements, to impress the high command in Berlin.

Both are reasonable explanations that are not lying and cause, as you want to do, to dismiss the entirety of Hoess's claims about gassings.

On Vrba, your analysis is even more incompetent.

You assert that, as if you are an expert in witness evidence. That point 5 in the OP, where revisionists act as they are experts in fields they have no experience of or relevant training in. Show me a study that proves a truthful witness will more accurately remember dates. Stop making assertions.

It is known that Himmler visited Auschwitz in the summer of 1942. Vrba says early 1943, so you say "oh, just bad with dates, he still passes the truth test." But you are ignoring that Vrba doesn't merely say Himmler visited the camp. He says Himmler visited the camp for the inauguration of the new gas chambers in early 1943 and describes in detail how Himmler looked through the peephole with glee during the gassing. THAT IS NOT BEING BAD WITH DATES. THAT IS FABRICATING AN ELABORATE FICTIONAL SCENARIO. THAT IS TYPICAL BEHAVIOR FOR A NOVELIST, NOT A WITNESS. THAT IS NOT A MINOR, ROUTINE LAPSE IN MEMORY.

You can SHOUT all you want, it does not make you right. If you had any knowledge of witness behaviour and memory, take witness statements, seen witnesses give evidence in court, you would understand that the errors Vrba and Hoess make are normal. Making errors with dates reduces credibility, but it does not make them liars.

Your incredulity about the witnesses is logically flawed and is not based on any study of witness behaviour or memory.

Corroborating evidence, which removes any risk of bias and is not based on opinion, proves that Hoess did visit TII and Himmler did visit A-B. They have not fabricated fictional visits. That evidence corroborates the statements, so, despite the errors, they are being generally truthful.

Remember, revisionist methodology results in no witnesses at all to what happened inside the AR camps, Chelmno or A-b Kremas. You have not been able to counter that point.

[fireofice]

The argument from incredulity, as applied to the witnesses, is widely used and relied upon, despite it being a logical fallacy.

Here's a good comment on the argument from incredulity "fallacy".

The appeal to incredulity “fallacy” involves one asserting that something doesn’t happen because they don’t see how it could happen. As Shatz explains in an article describing how to spot and avoid the fallacy:

The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone concludes that since they can’t believe something is true, then it must be false, and vice versa. For example, someone using the argument from incredulity might claim that since they don’t see how a certain scientific theory could be true, then it must be false.

…

Arguments from incredulity generally have one of two basic forms:

"I can’t imagine how X could be true; therefore, X must be false."

"I can’t imagine how X could be false; therefore, X must be true."

Shatz gives an example of this supposedly fallacious inference:

There is just no way that the concept of evolution is right; it just doesn’t make any sense to me. Creationism is a much better explanation of how we came to be.

Obviously if stated deductively—I can’t imagine how X happened therefore X must not have happened—the argument is fallacious. But this is true of all forms of probabilistic reasoning. When stated probabilistically—that because something makes no sense it probably didn’t happen—this isn’t fallacious reasoning. Imagine:

John (speaking to his three year old son): who ate the chocolate cake?

Little Timmy (his son): I’m sure it was the dog.

John: Then why do you have chocolate smeared all over your face?

Timmy: The dog eating it caused it to be on my face.

John: What? That makes no sense. Why would the dog eating it get chocolate on your face?

Timmy: That’s just how things work.

John: That makes no sense.

Timmy: You’re committing the appeal to personal incredulity fallacy. Just because something doesn’t make sense to you doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. For many years, a naturalistic explanation of lightning didn’t make sense to people to they inferrred Zeus did it. You’re just like that—just because the view doens’t make sense to you doesn’t mean it’s true.

Clearly, Timmy is reasoning incorrectly here. The fact that something makes no sense, in fact, makes it less likely. The mistake creationists make is that evolution does make sense. There’s a perfectly clear and consistent story of why evolution works. When proving that evolution makes sense, one can point to other data, like the fact that lots of scientists find it coherent, and can ask what about it makes no sense.

Obviously, the fact that something seems incoherent doesn’t automatically mean it is. But it reduces the plausibility of a view if it seems incoherent.

https://benthams.substack.com/p/two-fal ... that-arent

Another good video and article by someone well versed in philosophy on why appealing to "fallacies" all the time to try and win an argument is dumb.

Why I don't care about logical fallacies

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tcBav3rwZo

The Fallacy Fork: Why It’s Time to Get Rid of Fallacy Theory

https://maartenboudry.be/2017/06/the-fa ... o-get.html

[Nessie]

.....
https://benthams.substack.com/p/two-fal ... that-arent

Another good video and article by someone well versed in philosophy on why appealing to "fallacies" all the time to try and win an argument is dumb.

Why I don't care about logical fallacies

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tcBav3rwZo

The Fallacy Fork: Why It’s Time to Get Rid of Fallacy Theory

https://maartenboudry.be/2017/06/the-fa ... o-get.html

Those articles are about the misuse of fallacies. I refer to a few, same fallacies a lot, because revisionists make a few, same logical mistakes a lot. Remember, revisionism cannot agree about, let alone evidence what really happened at the gassing locations, so they resort to arguing the gassings did not place. That reliance on argument, is why, despite the mistakes being explained, revisionists keep on making them. They argue ad nauseam, hoping to wear their opponent down, so they will stop challenging the flawed logic.

Archie has been arguing that because Vrba and Hoess got dates wrong, and Hoess exaggerated the death toll, that means they are not credible enough to believe. That is not a logical flaw, it is another of the mistakes revisionists make, which is their ignorance of witnesses and memory.

The most common logically flawed argument is that witnesses are too untrustworthy, because the claims they make are implausible, such as how the mass pyres at the AR camps worked. As you quoted above;

"Obviously, the fact that something seems incoherent doesn’t automatically mean it is. But it reduces the plausibility of a view if it seems incoherent."

What to do, when witnesses make incredible claims that lack credibility? The answer is to put aside opinion and remove bias and look for other evidence, to determine if the evidence agrees with, or contradicts the witness. When every single witness who worked at the AR camps speaks to exhumations and mass pyres and people who lived nearby all agree that there were months of burning accompanied by a terrible stench coming from the camps, that is strong corroboration for the pyres. The Jewish descriptions of the pyres are emotive, and less credible. The Nazis and Poles who worked or lived nearby, are more matter of fact and more credible. Revisionists concentrate on the less credible Jewish testimony.

That site examinations later found large areas of disturbed ground containing cremated remains, further adds to the corroboration. We also have a motive, the Nazis did not want the corpses discovered, so there could be a body count, identification and cause of death established. By 1943, the war was turning, the Katyn massacre site had been found and senior Nazis wanted to make sure discovery was as difficult as possible. Revisionists will ignore or dispute that evidence, but they present no evidence to counter it and their assessments have no expert backing.

That witness descriptions of the pyres seem incoherent, and it is uncertain exactly how so many corpses were burned, there is overwhelming corroborating evidence the mass pyres existed. The revisionist argument is as sound as arguing that because it is incoherent, incredible, that ancient man was able to transport massive stones from Wales to Hampshire in England, therefore Stonehenge does not exist.

[Archie]

Archie has been arguing that because Vrba and Hoess got dates wrong, and Hoess exaggerated the death toll, that means they are not credible enough to believe. That is not a logical flaw, it is another of the mistakes revisionists make, which is their ignorance of witnesses and memory.

In this thread, you have made a huge number of assertions and so I mentioned Vrba and Hoess briefly as examples to force you to demonstrate how you apply your rules. We only scratched the surface of the problems with their statements. To say that inventing an elaborate story about Himmler watching a gassing of Jews from Cracow in the new Birkenau gas chambers when this demonstrably did not happen is not being "bad with dates." That's making up stories. And now you are tripling down on this absurd position.

Whether a particular error or contradiction is major or minor is obviously a matter a judgment. It's something to be discussed.

What you are doing is you are starting with the establishment conclusion and are assuming it is true. Then you are saying the witnesses are corroborated because they are vaguely consistent with the establishment story. And when we point out that actually that statements are contradictory and contain major errors, you brush these off as being "normal" errors for witnesses to make, i.e., you make excuses.

My problem with you is that you are trying to settle everything by application of generic rules that you made up and you are avoiding detailed analysis of the evidence.

[Archie]

Regarding Nessie's "argument from incredulity," his confused application of it is so broad that it would include many perfectly sensible arguments.

"Given that there are over a billion Christians in the world, it is unlikely that Santa could deliver presents to so many people in just a few hours. The implied speed is physically and logistically impossible."

This is an "argument from incredulity" fallacy, according to Nessie. He's wrong, of course. It's a perfectly good argument, and the conclusion is correct.

[Nessie]

Archie has been arguing that because Vrba and Hoess got dates wrong, and Hoess exaggerated the death toll, that means they are not credible enough to believe. That is not a logical flaw, it is another of the mistakes revisionists make, which is their ignorance of witnesses and memory.

In this thread, you have made a huge number of assertions and so I mentioned Vrba and Hoess briefly as examples to force you to demonstrate how you apply your rules. We only scratched the surface of the problems with their statements. To say that inventing an elaborate story about Himmler watching a gassing of Jews from Cracow in the new Birkenau gas chambers when this demonstrably did not happen is not being "bad with dates." That's making up stories. And now you are tripling down on this absurd position.

It is an absurd position of your making. I only linked to the evidence about people being bad with dates, in reference to Vrba and Hoess getting dates wrong, nothing else.

Whether a particular error or contradiction is major or minor is obviously a matter a judgment. It's something to be discussed.

A discussion that should refer to studies of witnesses, recall and memory and take into account the corroborating evidence. Opinion is biased and should be sidelined.

What you are doing is you are starting with the establishment conclusion and are assuming it is true. Then you are saying the witnesses are corroborated because they are vaguely consistent with the establishment story.

You are proving my point 4, by being disingenuous about the volume of evidence for gassings. I do not assume the history of gassings, I see that it is evidenced so that is why I believe it. Revisionism cannot produce an evidenced history, so I disbelieve it.

And when we point out that actually that statements are contradictory and contain major errors, you brush these off as being "normal" errors for witnesses to make, i.e., you make excuses.

You assert contradictions and major errors, with being specific and referencing any of the many studies on witnesses. How about you start being more specific?

My problem with you is that you are trying to settle everything by application of generic rules that you made up and you are avoiding detailed analysis of the evidence.

You are again making up a false position and attributing it to me. That is the strawman fallacy. The "generic rules" I supposedly made up, are the rules historians, lawyers, journalists and the police follow, as they gather evidence and establish a chronology and what is corroborated to have happened. I am happy to do into detailed analysis of the evidence. Maybe you can explain how you remove bias and avoid fallacies when you analyse witness testimony?

[Nessie]

Regarding Nessie's "argument from incredulity," his confused application of it is so broad that it would include many perfectly sensible arguments.

"Given that there are over a billion Christians in the world, it is unlikely that Santa could deliver presents to so many people in just a few hours. The implied speed is physically and logistically impossible."

This is an "argument from incredulity" fallacy, according to Nessie. He's wrong, of course. It's a perfectly good argument, and the conclusion is correct.

I said on page 1 of this thread (Wed Oct 02, 2024 8:53 am)

"The Santa Claus argument you make, is similar to the retort I have often received, about a boy cycling to the moon. Science can indeed prove it is impossible for Santa to cover the world in one night delivering presents from a sleigh, and that a boy cannot defy gravity and peddle his bike to the moon. Germans modifying a room inside an crematorium by fitting gas tight doors, holes in the roof, a mesh column and improved ventilation, is well within their design and engineering capabilities. Just because revisionists are unhappy with the witness descriptions and documents about those modifications, does not therefore prove no gas chambers. Science does not help your argument like you think it does."

Claims about Santa delivering presents across the world are physically impossible. Germans building gas chambers are not. The revisionist argument that because they do not believe and find incredible, the witness descriptions and other evidence as to how the gas chambers functioned, therefore no gas chambers, is a logically flawed argument.

[AreYouSirius]

Here are the reasons why revisionism, or Holocaust Denial, is wrong.

Revisionism is not denialism. The fact that you conflate the two is lazily sloppy and clearly shows you are incapable of approaching study of this historic event in a dispassionate, neutral, factual, academic manner.

[Archie]

Regarding Nessie's "argument from incredulity," his confused application of it is so broad that it would include many perfectly sensible arguments.

"Given that there are over a billion Christians in the world, it is unlikely that Santa could deliver presents to so many people in just a few hours. The implied speed is physically and logistically impossible."

This is an "argument from incredulity" fallacy, according to Nessie. He's wrong, of course. It's a perfectly good argument, and the conclusion is correct.

I said on page 1 of this thread (Wed Oct 02, 2024 8:53 am)

"The Santa Claus argument you make, is similar to the retort I have often received, about a boy cycling to the moon. Science can indeed prove it is impossible for Santa to cover the world in one night delivering presents from a sleigh, and that a boy cannot defy gravity and peddle his bike to the moon. Germans modifying a room inside an crematorium by fitting gas tight doors, holes in the roof, a mesh column and improved ventilation, is well within their design and engineering capabilities. Just because revisionists are unhappy with the witness descriptions and documents about those modifications, does not therefore prove no gas chambers. Science does not help your argument like you think it does."

Claims about Santa delivering presents across the world are physically impossible. Germans building gas chambers are not. The revisionist argument that because they do not believe and find incredible, the witness descriptions and other evidence as to how the gas chambers functioned, therefore no gas chambers, is a logically flawed argument.

Just to make sure I understand you. You think incredulity is okay but only if we are dealing with something is obviously physically impossible. But if we are incredulous about something that is merely wildly implausible then we are committing a fallacy? Can you confirm that that is your position?

Historians routinely reject or discount things on grounds of improbability. I am amazed that you don't know that.