"Beliefs" aren't necessarily wrong (reply to Nessie)

[HansHill]

Nessie, do you believe the blood libel?

There are witnesses, there is evidence, no physical laws were violated, etc. It was documented historical fact. Now, it's an antisemitic canard.

Why would the perpetrators have confessed if they didn't do it? Did the witnesses all lie? All of them? Hell, there were even bodies.

A very quick search of what the blood libel is, and most sources describe it as fake, an anti-Semitic trope. It looks like something similar to the witchcraft accusations made against women.

Just because you can't work out how jews would co-ordinate along racial lines to engage in usury and alien religious practices doesn't mean it didn't happen.

[Nessie]

Nessie, do you believe the blood libel?

There are witnesses, there is evidence, no physical laws were violated, etc. It was documented historical fact. Now, it's an antisemitic canard.

Why would the perpetrators have confessed if they didn't do it? Did the witnesses all lie? All of them? Hell, there were even bodies.

A very quick search of what the blood libel is, and most sources describe it as fake, an anti-Semitic trope. It looks like something similar to the witchcraft accusations made against women.

Just because you can't work out how jews would co-ordinate along racial lines to engage in usury and alien religious practices doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Correct. Just because I cannot work out how something could happen, does not mean therefore it did not happen.

The strength of evidencing tells us if something happened.

[Archie]

Misrepresentation. You ARE allowed to doubt or question the evidence. The issue is HOW you doubt or question the evidence. For example, you doubt and question witnesses describing how many people fitted inside a gas chambers. That is fine. I also doubt and question some of the witness estimations. We ARE allowed to doubt and question their estimations.

The problem is that you incorrectly state that a witness who clearly makes an incorrect claim about how many people fitted is a liar and cannot be trusted. I point to evidence that people are poor at estimating numbers and it is more likely they just overestimated how many people fitted. HOW you go about assessing the witness evidence is wrong, as it is contrary to studies about what is normal witness, memory, estimation and recall failures.

Saying that people are poor at estimating numbers is just a counterpoint. It doesn't settle the debate. We can disagree with your interpretation of those studies, etc. or the way you are applying them and we can offer our own points in response. This is called "debate." You make your points and we make ours. You constantly try to cut off the debate prematurely because you think "witness studies" is a mic drop. It isn't.

Simulated Dialogue

Rev: This witness claims 14 people per square meter in the gas chamber. That's totally ridiculous.

Nessie: There are studies showing that most people are total idiots and they can't reliably estimate things.

Rev: Sure, but there are reasonable and unreasonable errors. If an account is filled with errors and contradictions, including many unreasonable ones, there is a point where we can't very well rely on this person as a source.

Nessie: I think these errors are reasonable.

Rev: Ok, you do you.

Nessie: No, I am right because I googled a study.

Rev: I don't agree with you. Either way, it is strange to use a study indicating that witnesses are unreliable to argue that we must accept these witnesses as proof.

Nessie: You do not understand corroboration. I used to write parking tickets so I know that the correct method is to corroborate the witnesses. If the statements are corroborated, then this is strong evidence.

Rev: I agree that we should fact-check witnesses. But it seems to me that when we fact-check these witnesses, many of them get pretty bad grades. And many of the points can't be corroborated at all by hard evidence.

Nessie: No, these are a just normal errors. You would know this if you had been a cop.

Rev: Ok, so we fact-check the witnesses. And ... if there are points where they fail, we ignore it?

Nessie: We can ignore that stuff as long as the errors are normal.

Rev: Well, it seems like you are just disagreeing over what is and isn't a reasonable vs unreasonable error. Obviously that is debatable. But it seems you are trying to rig things so that we are biased in the direction of overlooking errors and contradictions. The problem with this approach is that you will get a lot of false positives, i.e, you will believe a lot of false witnesses.

Nessie: That's not a problem because of corroboration. If there are a lot of witnesses all saying the something vaguely similar (like there being some sort of gas chamber), then they corroborate each other and we know that it's true.

Rev: So then if we have multiple witnesses that say "gas chamber" then the gas chamber is now "corroborated" and it is now proved? But aren't there lots of examples where multiple witnesses have "corroborated" something that's false? The witch trials for example.

Nessie: Your example is the fallacy of false analogy because the situations are not identical in every respect. But gas chambers are possible and so in this instance it's corroborated.

Rev: What?

Nessie: Witches do not exist and everyone knows this, so it's different.

Rev: Well, obviously not everyone knew that since people believed in witches. But anyway, nobody is saying that gas chambers per se are "impossible." We are saying the proof that these gassings actually took place is wanting. There are many things that are possible that didn't happen.

Nessie: That's just your opinion. I use evidence, not opinion.

Rev: Well, sure, it's my opinion. Isn't everything you just said also opinion? Namely, yours?

Nessie: No, my conclusions are settled fact, not opinion.

The above simulated discussion incorporates many of your stock arguments; however, if anything, it's actually more productive than is typical with you because I have distilled your points rather than just cut everything off with "argument from incredulity."

The reason you prefer generalities is because you know that your arguments, if pursued, would collapse under their own weight.

[Nessie]

Misrepresentation. You ARE allowed to doubt or question the evidence. The issue is HOW you doubt or question the evidence. For example, you doubt and question witnesses describing how many people fitted inside a gas chambers. That is fine. I also doubt and question some of the witness estimations. We ARE allowed to doubt and question their estimations.

The problem is that you incorrectly state that a witness who clearly makes an incorrect claim about how many people fitted is a liar and cannot be trusted. I point to evidence that people are poor at estimating numbers and it is more likely they just overestimated how many people fitted. HOW you go about assessing the witness evidence is wrong, as it is contrary to studies about what is normal witness, memory, estimation and recall failures.

Saying that people are poor at estimating numbers is just a counterpoint. It doesn't settle the debate. We can disagree with your interpretation of those studies, etc. or the way you are applying them and we can offer our own points in response. This is called "debate." You make your points and we make ours...

How would you prove that a witness, who clearly over-estimates how many people could fit in a space, is lying?

[Nessie]

...

Simulated Dialogue

....

Rev: I don't agree with you. Either way, it is strange to use a study indicating that witnesses are unreliable to argue that we must accept these witnesses as proof.

Nessie: You do not understand corroboration. I used to write parking tickets so I know that the correct method is to corroborate the witnesses. If the statements are corroborated, then this is strong evidence.

Rev: I agree that we should fact-check witnesses. But it seems to me that when we fact-check these witnesses, many of them get pretty bad grades. And many of the points can't be corroborated at all by hard evidence.

....

Good, we agree that witnesses need to be corroborated.

When German engineers, SS camp staff and Jewish prisoners describe the construction and use of gas chambers in the Kremas, AND there are documents recording the construction and use of gas chambers, AND there is circumstantial evidence of selections, with the people not needed for work disappearing inside the Kremas, AND the Nazis had the motive, AND opportunity to kill, AND there are the remains of those buildings, destroyed by the Nazis before they abandoned the camp, AND those remains tested positive for HCN, that is corroborative evidence to prove gas chambers.

[fireofice]

We can rule out casting spells and flying on brooms. They cannot happen. There is ample evidence to prove that. We cannot rule out gassings, because the residue in the walls is lower than in the delousing chambers and lower than expected.

No actually, you can't, not with 100% certainty. I am an atheist and don't believe in the supernatural at all. But this is a position I got to on a probabilistic calculation. I looked at the world around me and came to the conclusion that the supernatural, gods, spirits, magic, ect. are simply unlikely to exist. But I can't be certain. It's possible that there are supernatural agents out there that haven't been detected. They are simply unlikely in my opinion.

Likewise, I believe that the holocaust likely didn't happen based on forensic evidence of a chemical analysis in the walls, the fuel problems, ect. But this is a conclusion based on a probabilistic calculations of the evidence. It's possible that there is something that is not being taken account of, but from what I know, it is rather unlikely.

However, if by "rule out they can happen" you are just speaking in a general way and not in certainties, then I also in the same way have "ruled out the holocaust can happen" in the way as described.

[Archie]

We can rule out casting spells and flying on brooms. They cannot happen. There is ample evidence to prove that. We cannot rule out gassings, because the residue in the walls is lower than in the delousing chambers and lower than expected.

No actually, you can't, not with 100% certainty. I am an atheist and don't believe in the supernatural at all. But this is a position I got to on a probabilistic calculation. I looked at the world around me and came to the conclusion that the supernatural, gods, spirits, magic, ect. are simply unlikely to exist. But I can't be certain. It's possible that there are supernatural agents out there that haven't been detected. They are simply unlikely in my opinion.

Likewise, I believe that the holocaust likely didn't happen based on forensic evidence of a chemical analysis in the walls, the fuel problems, ect. But this is a conclusion based on a probabilistic calculations of the evidence. It's possible that there is something that is not being taken account of, but from what I know, it is rather unlikely.

However, if by "rule out they can happen" you are just speaking in a general way and not in certainties, then I also in the same way have "ruled out the holocaust can happen" in the way as described.

He doesn't think in terms of probability. Things are either "evidenced" or "not evidenced." It's a binary thing in his mind.

[Nessie]

We can rule out casting spells and flying on brooms. They cannot happen. There is ample evidence to prove that. We cannot rule out gassings, because the residue in the walls is lower than in the delousing chambers and lower than expected.

No actually, you can't, not with 100% certainty. I am an atheist and don't believe in the supernatural at all. But this is a position I got to on a probabilistic calculation. I looked at the world around me and came to the conclusion that the supernatural, gods, spirits, magic, ect. are simply unlikely to exist. But I can't be certain. It's possible that there are supernatural agents out there that haven't been detected. They are simply unlikely in my opinion.

Apart from dubious witness claims during periods of national obsession with witchcraft, there has never been evidence people can cast spells and fly broomsticks. There is scientific evidence that both are not possible.

Likewise, I believe that the holocaust likely didn't happen based on forensic evidence of a chemical analysis in the walls, the fuel problems, ect. But this is a conclusion based on a probabilistic calculations of the evidence. It's possible that there is something that is not being taken account of, but from what I know, it is rather unlikely.

However, if by "rule out they can happen" you are just speaking in a general way and not in certainties, then I also in the same way have "ruled out the holocaust can happen" in the way as described.

You are now ruling out something that is well evidenced, that has no evidence to the contrary, using a logically flawed argument. Just because you cannot work out and do not believe something happened, does not evidence it did not happen.

[Nessie]

We can rule out casting spells and flying on brooms. They cannot happen. There is ample evidence to prove that. We cannot rule out gassings, because the residue in the walls is lower than in the delousing chambers and lower than expected.

No actually, you can't, not with 100% certainty. I am an atheist and don't believe in the supernatural at all. But this is a position I got to on a probabilistic calculation. I looked at the world around me and came to the conclusion that the supernatural, gods, spirits, magic, ect. are simply unlikely to exist. But I can't be certain. It's possible that there are supernatural agents out there that haven't been detected. They are simply unlikely in my opinion.

Likewise, I believe that the holocaust likely didn't happen based on forensic evidence of a chemical analysis in the walls, the fuel problems, ect. But this is a conclusion based on a probabilistic calculations of the evidence. It's possible that there is something that is not being taken account of, but from what I know, it is rather unlikely.

However, if by "rule out they can happen" you are just speaking in a general way and not in certainties, then I also in the same way have "ruled out the holocaust can happen" in the way as described.

He doesn't think in terms of probability. Things are either "evidenced" or "not evidenced." It's a binary thing in his mind.

Yet another misrepresentation. Things are either not evidenced, or they are poorly evidenced, or they are better evidenced, or they are very well evidenced. There are far more possibilities than you acknowledge.

The probability of something that is not evidenced happening, is incredibly low. That does not stop revisionists believing that millions of arrested Jews were not killed and were still in camps and ghettos in 1944 and liberated in 1945. Claims such as the Kremas were used to store corpses, or as mass showers or air raid shelters, 1943-4 are very poorly evidenced and they are contradicted by other evidence. That makes those claims improbably low, but still revisionists believe. Gas chambers are very well evidenced, by all the witnesses, multiple documents, circumstantial evidence, along with motive, opportunity and conduct after the crime. That means there is a high probability gas chambers existed, but revisionists prefer to the low, to non-existent probabilities!

[Keen]

I give evidence... There is very little judgement needed, when every single witness who worked at, for example TII, states... there were mass graves and cremations and those claims are corroborated by a combination of documentary, physical, archaeological and circumstantial evidence. That volume of evidence, would normally be considered a slam dunk, proven beyond reasonable doubt.

And here is the very best "evidence" that Nessie has given for the alleged murder and burial of 925,000 jews at Treblinka II, "evidence" that he alleges "proves beyond a reasonable doubt" his retarded allegations:



Nessie, I'm seeing just a wee bit less than 925,000 jews in that photo.

Is that really the best you've got?

Do I need magic glasses the see the human skulls, or what?

[Nessie]

In response to pilgrimofdark here;

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=15094#p15094

Time-wasting: "If you had read these 7 books of 1,600+ pages each written in an extinct Indo-European language with 450,000 combined footnotes to non-digitized Soviet show trial archives, you would have educated yourself on why Kurt Gerstein is corroborated."

It would help for so-called revisionists to be better educated. X is full of deniers who think the wooden door in Krema I was the door to the gas chambers, that an IRC death toll of 271k was the entire death toll for Jews in WWII and that it is odd Auschwitz had health care and recreational facilities. Access to good sources, in English, has never been easier, thanks to the internet. AI makes searching even easier again.

Burden-shifting: "If you can't point to where Jews were resettled in the Zio-Shire, then x million were steamed/gassed and buried and dug up and burned and buried. No other option."

Historians, who have produced an evidenced chronology of events, are not burden shifting so-called revisionists, when they ask them to actually revise history, and produce an evidenced chronology of events.

Double-standard of education/training
> "revisionists don't have the training necessary to evaluate the Holocaust"
> "read this Bachelor's degree research paper: it proves the Holocaust"
> *would ridicule a revisionist for holding a PhD in the History of Ideas*

There is no double standard, to pointing out that people without relevant training and experience, are more likely to make mistakes than those who have the training and experience. That applies to all tasks, jobs or occupations.

Refusal to disavow or acknowledge violence against revisionism
> "why are there so few revisionists?"
> *blows up a mild doubter and his wife*
> "you can't even get enough to peer review your books"
> *severe beating requiring hospitalization of a revisionist*
> "if more people agreed with you, they'd speak up"
> *someone speaks up, sent to jail for years*
> "no one takes you seriously enough to buy your books"
> *bans bookstore from payment processor, bans books from online marketplaces, bans books from public libraries, bans books from "banned books" lists*
> "why aren't there public gatherings of prominent revisionists?"
> *protests, drive-by shootings, vandalism of cars, bombing offices/houses of revisionists*

I am not aware of anyone who denies that so-called revisionists have been attacked, physically, and academically.

Lack of source criticism leading to non-falsifiable miracle-based proofs
If any number of people say something, then it happened. Impossible to disprove.
> "If 12 people say CO poisoning turns people black and purple and green, then that's how it happened."
> "If 25 people say a Toyota Camry drove 450 MPH, then that's proof a Camry engine can and did reach that speed."
> "If 70,000 people saw the sun stop and dance in the sky, then it's proven to have happened."
similar miracle impossible to disprove

That shows a lack of understanding of witness behaviour, memory and recall. The subject of witnesses has been studied for decades, but so-called revisionists show no interest in learning from all the experimentation on memory and recall.

[Keen]

Retard: "You can't be 100% certain about anything."

Skeptic: "Are you 100% certain about that?"

Retard: "Well, but, but, but..., math and shit."

Skeptic: "I'm 100% certain that no matter how many animal crackers I eat, a monkey will not fly out of my ass."

Rertard: "No, no, no. You can't be 100% certain of that, because you can't be 100% certain of anything... but math."

Skeptic: "So tell me, using math, how many animal crackers would I have to eat before a monkey did fly out of my ass?"

Retard: "I don't know, because you can't be 100 % certain about any given number. The number of animal crackers that I would have to eat before a monkey flew out of my ass might be different than the number of animal crackers that you have to eat before a monkey flies out of your ass."

Skeptic: "I'm 100% certain that you are full of shit."

Retard: "But, but, but... math and shit."

Skeptic: "Fucking retard."

[Keen]

The belief that one cannot be 100% certain of anything (but math) is childish, Alice in Wonderland magical thinking.

[Wahrheitssucher]

Retard: "You can't be 100% certain about anything."

Skeptic: "Are you 100% certain about that?"

Retard: "Well, but, but, but..., math and shit."

Skeptic: "I'm 100% certain that no matter how many animal crackers I eat, a monkey will not fly out of my ass."

Rertard: "No, no, no. You can't be 100% certain of that, because you can't be 100% certain of anything... but math."

Skeptic: "So tell me, using math, how many animal crackers would I have to eat before a monkey did fly out of my ass?"

Retard: "I don't know, because you can't be 100 % certain about any given number. The number of animal crackers that I would have to eat before a monkey flew out of my ass might be different than the number of animal crackers that you have to eat before a monkey flies out of your ass."

Skeptic: "I'm 100% certain that you are full of shit."

Retard: "But, but, but... math and shit."

Skeptic: "Fucking retard."

Excellent piece of satire!

Just the first part of the dialogue was a brilliant rejoinder:

Retard: "You can't be 100% certain about anything."
Skeptic: "Are you 100% certain about that?"