Logical Fallacies [Remedial education for Nessie]

[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.

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.

By "get down to business," I mean doing actual research and debate instead of handwaving everything.

Q: Is it a fallacy to point out contradictions and errors in witness statements?

A: No, it is not a fallacy to point out contradictions and errors in witness statements. Identifying inconsistencies is a valid and important part of critically evaluating the reliability and credibility of testimony. However, how those contradictions are interpreted and used in an argument can determine whether a fallacy is committed.

---

### **When Pointing Out Contradictions is NOT a Fallacy**
1. **Evaluating Credibility**:
- Contradictions and errors can reasonably lead to doubts about the reliability of a witness.
- Example: "The witness claimed the event happened at midnight but also said it occurred during daylight. This inconsistency raises questions about their reliability."
- This is a rational observation, not a fallacy.

2. **Testing Consistency**:
- Consistency is an important criterion for determining the accuracy of statements. Highlighting contradictions is part of a sound critical analysis process.

---

### **When It Could Be a Fallacy**
1. **Fallacy of Overgeneralization**:
- If you dismiss the entirety of a witness's testimony based on a minor contradiction or an irrelevant error, you might commit the *fallacy of composition* or overgeneralization.
- Example: "The witness got the date wrong, so everything they say must be false." This is an unjustified leap.

2. **Strawman Fallacy**:
- If you exaggerate or misrepresent the significance of a contradiction to discredit the witness entirely, that’s a *strawman fallacy*.
- Example: "They said the car was blue, but later called it green. Clearly, they’re lying about everything."

3. **Appeal to Perfection**:
- Expecting absolute perfection from a witness and dismissing their testimony due to minor, human errors could be an unreasonable standard. This might border on fallacious reasoning.

---

### **Key Considerations**
- **Nature of the Contradictions**: Are the inconsistencies about critical facts (e.g., location of the event) or minor details (e.g., clothing color)?
- **Pattern of Errors**: Are the contradictions isolated mistakes or part of a broader pattern of unreliable testimony?
- **Relevance**: Do the contradictions significantly affect the key issues of the case or argument?

---

### **Conclusion**
Pointing out contradictions in witness statements is not a fallacy in itself. It becomes problematic only if the contradictions are used improperly, such as to overgeneralize or misrepresent the reliability of the witness without sufficient justification. Properly done, identifying contradictions is a crucial part of critical thinking and analysis.

Critiquing witness statements is not a fallacy. Naturally people might disagree over whether a particular thing is a major vs minor error. But you cannot assume as an absolute principle that all witness errors we point out are "minor."

I also challenged you recently to quote a single example of a revisionist saying that 100% of the witnesses lied about everything and you failed, yet you still persist in characterizing the revisionist position in this slanted way.

[Nessie]

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.

By "get down to business," I mean doing actual research and debate instead of handwaving everything.

Q: Is it a fallacy to point out contradictions and errors in witness statements?

A: No, it is not a fallacy to point out contradictions and errors in witness statements. Identifying inconsistencies is a valid and important part of critically evaluating the reliability and credibility of testimony. However, how those contradictions are interpreted and used in an argument can determine whether a fallacy is committed.

---

That is something revisionists are poor at. For example, they mix hearsay and eyewitness evidence and claim inconsistencies. The best example of that, is the debate about diesel engines for gassing. The eyewitnesses to the engines either said they were petrol, or they did not say the fuel used. None said it was diesel. The diesel claim came from people who had not seen the engines, so their evidence is hearsay. There is actually a high level of consistency between the eyewitnesses.

Revisionists claim contradictions are evidence of a mass conspiracy of lying, whereas the contradictions are explainable and to be expected with multiple witnesses. The fallacy is, as AI correctly identifies, about how the contradictions are used.

### **When Pointing Out Contradictions is NOT a Fallacy**
1. **Evaluating Credibility**:
- Contradictions and errors can reasonably lead to doubts about the reliability of a witness.
- Example: "The witness claimed the event happened at midnight but also said it occurred during daylight. This inconsistency raises questions about their reliability."
- This is a rational observation, not a fallacy.

2. **Testing Consistency**:
- Consistency is an important criterion for determining the accuracy of statements. Highlighting contradictions is part of a sound critical analysis process.

---

That is correct. Revisionists look for contradictions and claim it is evidence of lying. But they fail to take into account normal witness recollection. For example, a witness is interviewed and said the event happened at midnight. That witness is interviewed again, a few years later and said it happened during the day. That can be explained by normal forgetfulness, or contamination of their evidence by influence from other sources. It does not mean they are lying about the event.

### **When It Could Be a Fallacy**
1. **Fallacy of Overgeneralization**:
- If you dismiss the entirety of a witness's testimony based on a minor contradiction or an irrelevant error, you might commit the *fallacy of composition* or overgeneralization.
- Example: "The witness got the date wrong, so everything they say must be false." This is an unjustified leap.

2. **Strawman Fallacy**:
- If you exaggerate or misrepresent the significance of a contradiction to discredit the witness entirely, that’s a *strawman fallacy*.
- Example: "They said the car was blue, but later called it green. Clearly, they’re lying about everything."

Revisionists commit those fallacies (which appear to be the same) a lot.

3. **Appeal to Perfection**:
- Expecting absolute perfection from a witness and dismissing their testimony due to minor, human errors could be an unreasonable standard. This might border on fallacious reasoning.

Again, that is a common error made by revisionists, who claim errors over things like dates, time, distance, size are evidence of lying.

### **Key Considerations**
- **Nature of the Contradictions**: Are the inconsistencies about critical facts (e.g., location of the event) or minor details (e.g., clothing color)?
- **Pattern of Errors**: Are the contradictions isolated mistakes or part of a broader pattern of unreliable testimony?
- **Relevance**: Do the contradictions significantly affect the key issues of the case or argument?

Most contradictions are minor details. The witnesses are consistent with the major details, such as the camp did have gas chambers, mass graves and there were pyres. Or, the Kremas were used for undressing, gassings and cremations.

### **Conclusion**
Pointing out contradictions in witness statements is not a fallacy in itself. It becomes problematic only if the contradictions are used improperly, such as to overgeneralize or misrepresent the reliability of the witness without sufficient justification. Properly done, identifying contradictions is a crucial part of critical thinking and analysis.

Critiquing witness statements is not a fallacy.

Correct. I never said it was a fallacy. The issue is that revisionists make no effort to learn about witnesses, memory and recall, so their ability to accurately critique witness evidence is limited. Revisionists make mistakes that AI has highlighted above.

Naturally people might disagree over whether a particular thing is a major vs minor error. But you cannot assume as an absolute principle that all witness errors we point out are "minor."

I say they are, because none of the contradictions are about the actual function of the relevant camps and Kremas. They are over the details of those functions. It is also the case that all the witnesses gave their testimony usually years later, so there is more room for errors to creep in.

I also challenged you recently to quote a single example of a revisionist saying that 100% of the witnesses lied about everything and you failed, yet you still persist in characterizing the revisionist position in this slanted way.

I answered by pointing out that all revisionists say that every witness who said they saw a gassing is lying. There is no revisionist who states that some of the witnesses were telling the truth when they said they saw gassings. If they did, they would not be a revisionist! Maybe you can correct me and show me a revisionist who accepts gassings took place, but only in Krema II and not III, or only at TII and not Belzec.

Every single person who worked at TII states that there were gas chambers, mass graves and pyres. Revisionists state that there were no gas chambers, mass graves or huge pyres at the camp. That by default means that revisionists are calling 100% of the witnesses to TII liars.

[Archie]

It does not matter what you show Nessie, he will always pretend like it vindicates him even if it contradicts him. He is impervious to correction. It's really quite extraordinary.

You can't argue with someone who can't be reasoned with. It's like trying to play chess with someone who can't figure out how the pieces move. It's impossible.

That's why I felt like I had to place him under moderation. Nessie is currently the most prolific poster on the forum. I can't say I'm happy about that given the dreadful quality of his contributions. Even from an anti-revisionist perspective he is subpar. By a lot.

[Archie]

Even with a statement like "I don't believe that because it seems off." This is obviously not a fully fleshed out argument. You could call it a "fallacy" I suppose, but I personally would not consider it to be one. It's just a statement of preliminary opinion which is fine. Depending on the person and the context, such intuition could be quite accurate. If you want to convince others, of course you would probably want to explain yourself a bit better.

Here is an example where the AI was asked to evaluate a statement and it responded with incredulity. And it was WRONG. Was this a fallacy? No. The AI drew a tentative conclusion and gave some reasoning that was really pretty sensible. It just happened to be wrong since it was hard to predict that Trump would win and start up a new department with such a meme-y name with Elon Musk in charge of it. Especially since ChatGPT isn't up on the latest events.


I checked six different logic books and zero mentioned "argument from incredulity" in their list of fallacies. From what I can tell, it became more common in online debates over evolution. To me, really the only instance where "argument from incredulity" is useful as a concept is in the context of science. But I think a better name for it would be more "personal ignorance" since that is the real issue, not 'incredulity" per se. In the Holocaust debate, it's clear which side is on the side of science.

[Nessie]

The revisionist argument is;

1 - Witnesses describe mass pyres, where thousands of exhumed corpses are cremated on a metal grate over a wood fire.
2 - Revisionists read the witness descriptions, which are lacking in detail and are often very emotive and declare them to all be too implausible to believe, none of them are credible.
3 - There is archaeological evidence to support the witnesses, from finds of large areas of disturbed ground containing cremated remains and ash.
4 - Revisionists, with no archaeological background, dismiss those studies are flawed and declare there is insufficient finds for there to have been mass pyres. They argue there is insufficient evidence to prove there was enough wood to cremate so many corpses.
5 - Revisionists conclude, from their arguments, there were no mass pyres, the witnesses all lied.
6 - Revisionists present no witness or archaeological evidence to prove there were no mass pyres, they are reliant on their argument.

It does not matter if you object to the form of argument being used by revisionists as the argument from incredulity. The arguments they use are logically flawed.

1 - Just because revisionists have decided the witnesses are all implausible, does not mean therefore they all lied.
2 - Just because they refuse to believe the archaeological evidence, does not now mean there is no evidence.
3 - Just because they cannot work out where the wood came from and the quantities needed, does not mean no pyres.
4 - They cannot provide evidence contemporaneous to the camp, to prove their claims.

I am on moderation because revisionists are prolific users of logically flawed arguments, which I point out, hence I post a lot (but self restrict to one part of the forum for more open debate, with this one exception). Without their arguments, revisionists have nothing, hence they are so defensive about attacks on their arguments.

[Nessie]

Even with a statement like "I don't believe that because it seems off." This is obviously not a fully fleshed out argument. You could call it a "fallacy" I suppose, but I personally would not consider it to be one. It's just a statement of preliminary opinion which is fine. Depending on the person and the context, such intuition could be quite accurate. If you want to convince others, of course you would probably want to explain yourself a bit better.

....

Agreed, "preliminary opinion" something is "off" is fine. No fallacy has been committed yet. The issue is about how to "explain yourself a bit better".

AI explains the argument from incredulity, as you quoted;

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.

Revisionists spend their time looking at the plausibility of witness claims, and because they cannot find them to be plausible, declare them to be liars. They study how it would be possible to gas, cremate and bury people as the witnesses claim and because they cannot work out how it would be possible to their satisfaction, they declare the witnesses to be liars. As AI states, that is not a valid basis for evaluating truth.

To prove those witnesses lied, you need evidence from other witnesses, documents drafted at the time, archaeological studies, photos and physical evidence gathered from the relevant locations. You do not have any of that.

[Nazgul]

To prove those witnesses lied, you need evidence from other witnesses, documents drafted at the time, archaeological studies, photos and physical evidence gathered from the relevant locations. You do not have any of that.

You do not even know that they even existed.

[Archie]

I am on moderation because revisionists are prolific users of logically flawed arguments, which I point out, hence I post a lot (but self restrict to one part of the forum for more open debate, with this one exception). Without their arguments, revisionists have nothing, hence they are so defensive about attacks on their arguments.

You are under moderation because you appeal to fallacies as a crutch to avoid having to engage with the substance of our arguments.

Your "debate" style violates several forum rules and makes intelligent interaction impossible.

• You egregiously violate the principle of charity, as defined in the rules
• Your rebuttals are repetitive, generic, and lacking in substance and hence violate the rule against "unsupported disagreement" as well as the rule against unresponsive behavior ("no dodging").
• You generally ignore or are incapable of understanding or addressing counterpoints

Do better. (Although if you haven't learned by now, in all likelihood you never will.)

[Hektor]

To prove those witnesses lied, you need evidence from other witnesses, documents drafted at the time, archaeological studies, photos and physical evidence gathered from the relevant locations. You do not have any of that.

You do not even know that they even existed.

Actual fact is that you would to corroborate that a prosecution tells reasonably the truth. E.g. that he even could be a witness, that what is testified about is possible or likely. That it got sufficient details, etc.



As far as homicidal gassings are concerned. The pointing at witnesses is the go to argument of exterminationist. But can they identify one homicidal gassing event and then give the details required in a homicide case under normal circumstances?

For starters, they commonly can't give you names of victims, evidence that there were victims, a plausible procedure being followed, dates or times of that event... And there is actually no corroboration at all. What you'd get is from a large number of potential witnesses several witnesses are picked that claim to have seen something sounding like homicidal gassings. But those stories are on scrutiny rather obnoxious in terms of what supposedly happened. Some of it sounds like 'stolen valor'... where the person makes claims about itself to draw attention to itself. And it did indeed sell some books for some of them. Made them probably sufficiently rich. Strangely of the Eastern Europeans could even resettle in Western Europe afterwards....

Anyway, you can't appeal to logic, plausibility and reason, when it comes to the Holocaust subject. So they appeal to emotion, gullibility, empathy and moralistic arrogance of people.

[Nessie]

I am on moderation because revisionists are prolific users of logically flawed arguments, which I point out, hence I post a lot (but self restrict to one part of the forum for more open debate, with this one exception). Without their arguments, revisionists have nothing, hence they are so defensive about attacks on their arguments.

You are under moderation because you appeal to fallacies as a crutch to avoid having to engage with the substance of our arguments.

Your "debate" style violates several forum rules and makes intelligent interaction impossible.

• You egregiously violate the principle of charity, as defined in the rules
• Your rebuttals are repetitive, generic, and lacking in substance and hence violate the rule against "unsupported disagreement" as well as the rule against unresponsive behavior ("no dodging").
• You generally ignore or are incapable of understanding or addressing counterpoints

Do better. (Although if you haven't learned by now, in all likelihood you never will.)

I notice you give no examples to back up your accusations.

If you do not want me to repeatedly point out that revisionists rely on the same logically flawed arguments again and again, then stop using those arguments! Instead, start to evidence your claims, using witnesses, documents, physical items, imagery, archaeological and forensic reports and circumstantial evidence, the evidence that historians, journalists and criminal investigators use.

I understand your counterpoints. Unfortunately for you, as shown in this thread, when you tried to use AI for counterpoints, IT AGREED WITH ME! That is when you put me on moderation.

You want to keep on using logically flawed arguments, instead of evidence, to support your beliefs, and you cannot have that challenged.

[Nessie]

To prove those witnesses lied, you need evidence from other witnesses, documents drafted at the time, archaeological studies, photos and physical evidence gathered from the relevant locations. You do not have any of that.

You do not even know that they even existed.

Actual fact is that you would to corroborate that a prosecution tells reasonably the truth. E.g. that he even could be a witness, that what is testified about is possible or likely. That it got sufficient details, etc.

As far as homicidal gassings are concerned. The pointing at witnesses is the go to argument of exterminationist. But can they identify one homicidal gassing event and then give the details required in a homicide case under normal circumstances?

Normal circumstances of proof is when there is sufficient corroborating evidence from multiple sources of evidence, independent of each other. That is the case for mass gassings at the AR camps, Chelmno and the A-B Kremas. Multiple witnesses, Nazi, Jewish and Polish, along with evidence from documents, archaeological surveys and circumstantial evidence of the process at those places, proves mass gassings.

For starters, they commonly can't give you names of victims, evidence that there were victims, a plausible procedure being followed, dates or times of that event...

The Auschwitz museum tweets on a daily basis, the names and dates of individuals who were gassed. There are volumes of transport records to prove who arrived at the camps and on what dates, after which, unlike those known to have survived, they drop off all records.

The evidence they were gassed comes from the witnesses and other evidence of the process at the camps with gas chambers.

And there is actually no corroboration at all.

That is not true. Witness claims of mass transports are corroborated by Nazi records of mass transports. Witness claims of Kremas with undressing rooms, gas chambers and mass cremation ovens, are corroborated by Nazi documents that recorded the construction of such inside the Kremas. Witness claims of mass graves and cremations are corroborated by archaeological surveys of the sites that found large areas of disturbed ground containing cremated remains.

What you'd get is from a large number of potential witnesses several witnesses are picked that claim to have seen something sounding like homicidal gassings. But those stories are on scrutiny rather obnoxious in terms of what supposedly happened. Some of it sounds like 'stolen valor'... where the person makes claims about itself to draw attention to itself. And it did indeed sell some books for some of them. Made them probably sufficiently rich. Strangely of the Eastern Europeans could even resettle in Western Europe afterwards....

When revisionists assess the witnesses, they extraordinarily conclude that 100% of those who worked inside an AR camp, Chelmno or A-B Krema lied. They cannot trace a single witness who worked there, who they believe, who states he saw gassings. That happens because revisionist assessment of witnesses is merely excuses to disbelieve, and they fail to take into account multiple studies of witness evidence, that explain issues over credibility and reliability.

Anyway, you can't appeal to logic, plausibility and reason, when it comes to the Holocaust subject. So they appeal to emotion, gullibility, empathy and moralistic arrogance of people.

The Holocaust has been evidenced in the same way all history is evidenced. It is revisionism that appeals to emotion and fails to evidence what happened.

[Archie]

I am on moderation because revisionists are prolific users of logically flawed arguments, which I point out, hence I post a lot (but self restrict to one part of the forum for more open debate, with this one exception). Without their arguments, revisionists have nothing, hence they are so defensive about attacks on their arguments.

You are under moderation because you appeal to fallacies as a crutch to avoid having to engage with the substance of our arguments.

Your "debate" style violates several forum rules and makes intelligent interaction impossible.

• You egregiously violate the principle of charity, as defined in the rules
• Your rebuttals are repetitive, generic, and lacking in substance and hence violate the rule against "unsupported disagreement" as well as the rule against unresponsive behavior ("no dodging").
• You generally ignore or are incapable of understanding or addressing counterpoints

Do better. (Although if you haven't learned by now, in all likelihood you never will.)

I notice you give no examples to back up your accusations.

If you do not want me to repeatedly point out that revisionists rely on the same logically flawed arguments again and again, then stop using those arguments! Instead, start to evidence your claims, using witnesses, documents, physical items, imagery, archaeological and forensic reports and circumstantial evidence, the evidence that historians, journalists and criminal investigators use.

I understand your counterpoints. Unfortunately for you, as shown in this thread, when you tried to use AI for counterpoints, IT AGREED WITH ME! That is when you put me on moderation.

You want to keep on using logically flawed arguments, instead of evidence, to support your beliefs, and you cannot have that challenged.

The AI did NOT agree with you. The AI correctly explained that there is a difference between an unsupported, arbitrary expression of incredulity and reaching a skeptical conclusion based on informed analysis, evidence, data, etc. You refuse to appreciate this difference. Even though we have 50+ volumes of Holocaust Handbooks, you claim revisionism is based on nothing more than "personal incredulity." That's just absurdly dishonest of you to say that we have not provided any reasoning at all to support our position. You just disagree with our conclusions and you think you can settle that disagreement by saying "fallacy." You can't. Especially when you don't know what you are talking about. I asked you to get ONE person to endorse you understanding of "argument from incredulity" and you won't/can't do it.

Q: Regarding the point "just because you can't work out how it happened doesn't mean it didn't happen," it seems to me like there is a major difference between a random, uninformed individual saying they can't work out how it happened and if no one can work out how it would be possible.

A: You're absolutely correct—there is a significant difference between an individual’s inability to "work out how something happened" and a general consensus that no one (including experts) can reasonably explain how it could happen. This distinction is crucial when evaluating whether skepticism is justified or if it crosses into the realm of fallacy.

You cannot settle any sort of serious debate by citing basic fallacies. It will come down to the actual substance of the arguments and evidence. Spamming fallacy accusations is similar in effect to ad hominem attacks. What happens if both sides start doing it?

"You're doing fallacies." "No, you're doing fallacies."

There is a point where this is effectively not much different that people calling each other idiots/liars.

[Nessie]

.....
I notice you give no examples to back up your accusations.

If you do not want me to repeatedly point out that revisionists rely on the same logically flawed arguments again and again, then stop using those arguments! Instead, start to evidence your claims, using witnesses, documents, physical items, imagery, archaeological and forensic reports and circumstantial evidence, the evidence that historians, journalists and criminal investigators use.

I understand your counterpoints. Unfortunately for you, as shown in this thread, when you tried to use AI for counterpoints, IT AGREED WITH ME! That is when you put me on moderation.

You want to keep on using logically flawed arguments, instead of evidence, to support your beliefs, and you cannot have that challenged.

The AI did NOT agree with you. The AI correctly explained that there is a difference between an unsupported, arbitrary expression of incredulity and reaching a skeptical conclusion based on informed analysis, evidence, data, etc. You refuse to appreciate this difference.

I appreciate that difference and then explain why revisionism;

1 - is not informed analysis. It is the opinion of people with little to no relevant training or expertise in history, criminal investigations or archaeology. It is a series of assertions and arguments that are logically flawed.

2 - they are often not using contemporaneous evidence from the places under discussion, instead, they try to reinterpret the evidence for gassings, or declare witnesses to be lying, or documents forged. They introduce no evidence to support alternative narratives, such as a witness or document that evidences regular mass transports back out of the AR camps.

3 - the data they use is, like statistics, crafted to achieve the desired outcome. It is data that is guess work and estimations, based on limited information, with no experimentation.

You think you have supported your incredulity, but you have failed.

Even though we have 50+ volumes of Holocaust Handbooks, you claim revisionism is based on nothing more than "personal incredulity." That's just absurdly dishonest of you to say that we have not provided any reasoning at all to support our position.

Those books are full of reasons why revisionists do not believe the gas chambers, mass graves, pyres and cremation ovens are physically possible as described, therefore the witnesses are lying about such happening and those events did not happen.

You just disagree with our conclusions and you think you can settle that disagreement by saying "fallacy." You can't. Especially when you don't know what you are talking about. I asked you to get ONE person to endorse you understanding of "argument from incredulity" and you won't/can't do it.

This, from page 1, where you quoted AI, endorses my argument that revisionists rely on the 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.

An example might be someone saying, “I just can’t imagine how evolution could produce complex life forms, so it must be false.” This reasoning overlooks the extensive scientific evidence supporting evolution and instead relies on personal incredulity as grounds for rejection."

Revisionists rejected the extensive evidence supporting gassings, graves and cremations, in favour of the like of Mattogno arguing that because he cannot work out how they were possible and why he finds the witness claims to be implausible, therefore they did not happen. He then fails to evidence what did happen. Mattogno cannot work out how the gassings and cremations were possible, to his satisfaction and he declares such did not happen. That is the argument from incredulity AI described.

Q: Regarding the point "just because you can't work out how it happened doesn't mean it didn't happen," it seems to me like there is a major difference between a random, uninformed individual saying they can't work out how it happened and if no one can work out how it would be possible.

A: You're absolutely correct—there is a significant difference between an individual’s inability to "work out how something happened" and a general consensus that no one (including experts) can reasonably explain how it could happen. This distinction is crucial when evaluating whether skepticism is justified or if it crosses into the realm of fallacy.

You cannot settle any sort of serious debate by citing basic fallacies. It will come down to the actual substance of the arguments and evidence. Spamming fallacies is similar in effect to ad hominem attacks. What happens if both sides start doing it?

"You're doing fallacies." "No, you're doing fallacies."

There is a point where this is effectively not much different that people calling each other idiots/liars.

Revisionist constantly spam fallacies, as their main source of argument. That is because they lack evidence.

The proven history of events inside the Kremas, is obtained by the evidence of people who were there, documents that pertain directly to its workings and circumstances in 1943-4 and the physical evidence of the buildings themselves. Since two were destroyed so nothing is left, two were severely damaged and one extensively modified, the physical evidence is limited. It is evidence from such sources that history is normally established.

Using Mattogno as an example. He cannot produce a single witness that worked in a Krema he believes. He often relies on documents that are not about the Kremas and he has to come up with uncorroborated claims about what documents mean, such as the reference to shower heads for a Liechenkeller. He claims that means it was likely used as a shower, but he cannot produce any evidence of people showering. He also argues the Kremas could have been used to store corpses and as delousing chambers, meaning he cannot produce a chronological history of what took place. Instead he argues that gassings and cremations were not possible, because he cannot work out how much coke would have been used and how the drainage would work. That is not a normal history, it is a series of arguments from incredulity.

[Hektor]

....
You cannot settle any sort of serious debate by citing basic fallacies. It will come down to the actual substance of the arguments and evidence. Spamming fallacies is similar in effect to ad hominem attacks. What happens if both sides start doing it?

"You're doing fallacies." "No, you're doing fallacies."

There is a point where this is effectively not much different that people calling each other idiots/liars.

Nessie got a Bot-like way of 'arguing'.... It works with a very flexible logic and by that method you can prove virtually everything, meaning that it can't prove anything at all, since it lacks discriminating properties.

[Archie]

"Is this an argument from incredulity fallacy?"

AI: "No. It's only a fallacy if you don't provide any reasons for your incredulity."

Nessie: "Well, any reasons offered by revisionists automatically don't count bc I say so. So it's a fallacy."