Falsification

[Callafangers]

We have now moved from in principle, to in practice.

Popper's falsification principle is meant as something of a preliminary filter to ensure a claim or prediction is even meaningful, scientific, or legitimate to begin with. For a claim or prediction to be conceivably falsifiable is sufficient to admit the claim as scientific/testable on a theoretical basis. However, the principle necessarily extends to how and whether a claim is scientific/testable in practice, for the same reasoning Popper applies to the principle on its theoretical basis: exposure to risk of refutation. Without this, the claim is parked as a theoretical possibility but cannot advance -- it is an illegitimate claim.

[Nessie]

We have now moved from in principle, to in practice.

Popper's falsification principle is meant as something of a preliminary filter to ensure a claim or prediction is even meaningful, scientific, or legitimate to begin with. For a claim or prediction to be conceivably falsifiable is sufficient to admit the claim as scientific/testable on a theoretical basis. However, the principle necessarily extends to how and whether a claim is scientific/testable in practice, for the same reasoning Popper applies to the principle on its theoretical basis: exposure to risk of refutation. Without this, the claim is parked as a theoretical possibility but cannot advance -- it is an illegitimate claim.

On a theoretical, in principle and practical level, the 1945 and 2011 site examinations were conducted in a such a way, that if no mass graves had even been dug, the examinations would have established that. You claim that the 1945 survey did indeed find no such evidence. Therefore, on all levels, Popper's principle applies.

[Callafangers]

On a theoretical, in principle and practical level, the 1945 and 2011 site examinations were conducted in a such a way, that if no mass graves had even been dug, the examinations would have established that. You claim that the 1945 survey did indeed find no such evidence. Therefore, on all levels, Popper's principle applies.

The claim(s) required of the 'Holocaust' narrative are not exclusively of whether 'mass graves had been dug'. They are more specific than that. Moreover, the examinations you mention identified an overwhelming lack of corpses (1945) or meaningless 'disturbances' (2011).

And yes, to the extent that the claim, 'there are hundreds of thousands of corpses underneath Treblinka' was ever scientific/falsifiable, the testing thus far has shown it indeed as false.

Once again, Popper's principle doesn't tell you whether a claim is true or false. It tells you whether it is a legitimate claim (risk-exposed) to begin with. The testing still has to happen, to determine what's true or not.

[Nessie]

On a theoretical, in principle and practical level, the 1945 and 2011 site examinations were conducted in a such a way, that if no mass graves had even been dug, the examinations would have established that. You claim that the 1945 survey did indeed find no such evidence. Therefore, on all levels, Popper's principle applies.

The claim(s) required of the 'Holocaust' narrative are not exclusively of whether 'mass graves had been dug'. They are more specific than that. Moreover, the examinations you mention identified an overwhelming lack of corpses (1945) or meaningless 'disturbances' (2011).

And yes, to the extent that the claim, 'there are hundreds of thousands of corpses underneath Treblinka' was ever scientific/falsifiable, the testing thus far has shown it indeed as false.

But previously you said;

Any claim or prediction of the 'Holocaust' can be subjected to Popper's falsification principle. And almost all such claims fail the test. Even though some may be theoretically falsifiable (e.g. that there are a million Jews underneath Treblinka, which could be tested via excavation/archaeology), these are not falsifiable in-practice due to anti-denial laws and policies.

You have gone from the mass graves are not falsifiable in practice to the testing has shown it indeed as false. Which one is it?

Once again, Popper's principle doesn't tell you whether a claim is true or false. It tells you whether it is a legitimate claim (risk-exposed) to begin with. The testing still has to happen, to determine what's true or not.

Now you flip to the testing that you claimed has shown mass graves to be indeed false, has not been done! Sorry, but you are all over the place. Make your mind up. Maybe this discussion should have been in the goalposts thread, the way you move them about so much. You are doing that because you are reluctant to agree with me, that mass graves do pass Popper's principle of falsifiability.

In principle, claims about mass graves at the AR camps, pass Popper's principle, because there is a way to determine if mass graves were ever dug, by excavations and geophysics. Those methods can falsify a claim of mass graves, by finding ground that has never been dug into. You cannot deny that, as it passes the test of being something scientifically falsifiable. Archaeologists know if they are the first people to dig into ground, or if it has been dug before. Geophysical testing such as GPR is specifically designed to find disturbed ground and buried items. If excavations and geophysics find no disturbed ground and no buried remains, a claim about a mass grave has been falsified.

In practice, when disturbed ground is found, the next step is to determine how big they were and what was buried in them. We will never agree on whether the disturbed ground at the AR camps is big enough and enough human remains have been found to prove mass graves. The Nazis did a very good job of destroying evidence, making body counts impossible. You will forever deny their existence and ignore the fact that I have other evidence to prove their existence, from eyewitnesses, documentary and circumstantial evidence.

I would finish off by repeating my point that there is nothing about the Holocaust, that is not scientifically or otherwise evidentially falsifiable.

[HansHill]

I would finish off by repeating my point that there is nothing about the Holocaust, that is not scientifically or otherwise evidentially falsifiable.

You are so unbelievably full of sh*t, its incredible that you are still allowed to pander your slop on this forum.

Here you are strutting your stuff that you are Mister Falsifiable, Mr Science and Rationality himself in the flesh, adhering perfectly to the laws of science, rationality, and debate. Yet when you hit a deadend such as coming up empty handed on the Prussian Blue question, you immediately pivot to "B-b-b-but maybe the walls were blue". You made a whole thread about this slop:

viewtopic.php?p=13047#p13047

You cannot on the one hand say you consider everything falsifiable, then when you hit a dead-end, prop your claims up externally with speculation, supposition, and slop just to maintain your conclusion. The fact you don't understand this is hilarious for everyone watching and reading.

[Nessie]

I would finish off by repeating my point that there is nothing about the Holocaust, that is not scientifically or otherwise evidentially falsifiable.

You are so unbelievably full of sh*t, its incredible that you are still allowed to pander your slop on this forum.

Here you are strutting your stuff that you are Mister Falsifiable, Mr Science and Rationality himself in the flesh, adhering perfectly to the laws of science, rationality, and debate. Yet when you hit a deadend such as coming up empty handed on the Prussian Blue question, you immediately pivot to "B-b-b-but maybe the walls were blue". You made a whole thread about this slop:

viewtopic.php?p=13047#p13047

You cannot on the one hand say you consider everything falsifiable, then when you hit a dead-end, prop your claims up externally with speculation, supposition, and slop just to maintain your conclusion. The fact you don't understand this is hilarious for everyone watching and reading.

There is a debate over whether the "Prussian Blue question" falsifies their use as gas chambers. Obviously you think it does, others disagree, for various reasons debated in other threads. That disagreement means gas chambers cannot be definitively falsified by the absence of PB. The absence of PB is not as reliable a test as other tests, such as GPR and excavations. Those two methods are very reliable at determining if the ground has been disturbed and something has been buried.

The reason why you are so reliant on PB to try to falsify the use of gas chambers, is because you lack the type of evidence that would falsify their use, such as corroborating Krema workers who state they saw no gas chambers and the Leichenkellers were used for another purpose.

[Archie]

I remember when Nessie and bombsaway were arguing that the fraudulent Soviet investigation of Katyn actually supported the Holocaust because, well, since they got caught in that instance, that just proves that fraud is impossible to get away with!

Nessie's various rules of thumb he uses for analyzing evidence are all rigged toward accepting the Holocaust. Witness statements can have any sort of errors and contradictions but it's okay because that's "normal." Statements that are directly refuted by hard evidence are contorted via mental gymnastics to be close enough.

For an especially shameless example of this, see here:
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=69

[bombsaway]

I remember when Nessie and bombsaway were arguing that the fraudulent Soviet investigation of Katyn actually supported the Holocaust because, well, since they got caught in that instance, that just proves that fraud is impossible to get away with!

I didn't say the Katyn "investigation" itself supported, I said their failure to cover up / purge internal documents / suppress witnesses shows that they wouldn't be able to successfully do that concerning an even 10,000 x larger.

[Nessie]

I remember when Nessie and bombsaway were arguing that the fraudulent Soviet investigation of Katyn actually supported the Holocaust because, well, since they got caught in that instance, that just proves that fraud is impossible to get away with!

A typical misrepresentation. The argument is that since just one massacre could not be long term hoaxed by the Soviets, it seems highly unlikely they, or anyone else, could have long term hoaxed the far larger Holocaust.

Nessie's various rules of thumb he uses for analyzing evidence are all rigged toward accepting the Holocaust. Witness statements can have any sort of errors and contradictions but it's okay because that's "normal."

Another misrepresentation. Witnesses whose errors or contradictions lead to evidence they have lied, or they are not corroborated in the claim, have those claims dismissed. But they do not necessarily have everything they say dismissed, which is what you would want to do. For example, a witness who states a far larger than is possible, number of people fitted inside a gas chamber. Otherwise, where the error or contradiction can be explained, such as the witness overestimated how many people fitted, as experiments prove we are poor at such estimations, it is normal.

Statements that are directly refuted by hard evidence are contorted via mental gymnastics to be close enough.

For an especially shameless example of this, see here:
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=69

Do some research into how good people are at remembering dates and when events took place. You will learn something. I know you will not bother, as you do not want to have to accept that the vast majority of witness claims that you want to dismiss as lies or otherwise disbelieve them, are explainable and "normal".

[Monsieur Sceptique]

We have now moved from in principle, to in practice.

Popper's falsification principle is meant as something of a preliminary filter to ensure a claim or prediction is even meaningful, scientific, or legitimate to begin with. For a claim or prediction to be conceivably falsifiable is sufficient to admit the claim as scientific/testable on a theoretical basis. However, the principle necessarily extends to how and whether a claim is scientific/testable in practice, for the same reasoning Popper applies to the principle on its theoretical basis: exposure to risk of refutation. Without this, the claim is parked as a theoretical possibility but cannot advance -- it is an illegitimate claim.

On a theoretical, in principle and practical level, the 1945 and 2011 site examinations were conducted in a such a way, that if no mass graves had even been dug, the examinations would have established that. You claim that the 1945 survey did indeed find no such evidence. Therefore, on all levels, Popper's principle applies.

Could you give me please a link to these examinations, i'm quite curious.

[Nessie]

....
On a theoretical, in principle and practical level, the 1945 and 2011 site examinations were conducted in a such a way, that if no mass graves had even been dug, the examinations would have established that. You claim that the 1945 survey did indeed find no such evidence. Therefore, on all levels, Popper's principle applies.

Could you give me please a link to these examinations, i'm quite curious.

First two links here;

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=594

I find it hard to see how someone could read those reports and conclude that they do not evidence large areas of disturbed ground containing human remains and corroborate witness descriptions of the mass graves and cremations.

[Monsieur Sceptique]

....
On a theoretical, in principle and practical level, the 1945 and 2011 site examinations were conducted in a such a way, that if no mass graves had even been dug, the examinations would have established that. You claim that the 1945 survey did indeed find no such evidence. Therefore, on all levels, Popper's principle applies.

Could you give me please a link to these examinations, i'm quite curious.

First two links here;

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=594

I find it hard to see how someone could read those reports and conclude that they do not evidence large areas of disturbed ground containing human remains and corroborate witness descriptions of the mass graves and cremations.

Page 126 second link

As mentioned above, given the diversity in witness accounts and the fact that the majority of structures were demolished prior to the end of the war, although there is general agreement that the aforementioned features existed, their exact locations are not known.

Diversity in witness accounts ? They were all in the camp

Page 129

Three mass graves, containing 305 bodies and a number of individual graves were exhumed (GARF 7021). The subsequent report that was produced highlighted that, although no invasive work was undertaken at Treblinka II, 'a huge area of the camp was covered with cinders and ashes' whilst the remains of a burnt house, a cattle stall and various pits containing personal belongings were noted (GARF 7021).

Page 134

This plan also reveals the locations of excavations undertaken by the survey team during this period. Excavations were undertaken near the apparent location of the 'camp hospital', revealing several personal belongings and coins, and test pits were dug in the area thought to contain the gas chambers, although no building foundations were noted (Wojtczak 1975). However, in the latter case it was reported that 'undisturbed layers of earth were uncovered' at a depth of only 1.5m (Wojtczak 1975:184). A large crater was excavated to a depth of 7.5m and 'numerous human remains were found by these excavations, partially still in a state of decomposition', again revealing that not all the bodies were cremated (Wojtczuk 1975:184; IMTN 1947).

It's contredict statement..

Page 135

Interestingly, Łukaszkiewicz's (1946d) team returned to Treblinka I for two days in August 1946 to conduct investigations into potential further mass graves (Figure 4.7). Although 41 mass graves were identified, 40 had been desecrated, and Łukaszkiewicz (1946d) argued that this made it impossible to determine exactly how many people were buried there, although an estimate of 6500 was provided. However, this once again demonstrates the haste with which such investigations were carried out and the emphasis on determining that remains existed in a given place, as opposed to their detailed investigation, as noted in Chapter 1.

Honestly it's quite few
Page 195

Only 300,000 fewer people were killed at Treblinka II, as were at Auschwitz if the official figure is taken to be 800,000. However, the methods of killing and disposal at Treblinka II were not characteristic of the almost factory-like system in place at Auschwitz, but represented a much more primitive set of procedures that developed over time (Iwaszko et al 2000). Treblinka II did not have crematoria and, until November 1942, the victims were disposed of in mass graves located around the camp (Glazar 1999). Although as Sereny (1995:100) argues, 'the killings were organised systematically to achieve the maximum humiliation and dehumanisation

I must point out that the death toll must be closer to 300,000, and the fact that we cannot find more than 6,500 proves nothing; he could have died from anything.

Page 202

Most commonly, witnesses refer to the removal of the bodies of the victims from the gas chambers and their alignment on these rails: ‘a series of furnaces covered on the top with four rows of rails extended along the entire length of one of the walls of the pit. The bodies were laid on the rails, caught fire from the flames burning in the furnaces and burned. About 1000 bodies were burned simultaneously. The burning process lasted up to five hours’ (Leleko 1945).

5 hours to burn 1000 bodies simultaneously ? Really ? Impossible i can't believe it

Page 215

Given their location in the area thought to contain most of the mass graves and their proximity to the memorial, there is a strong case for arguing that they represent further disposals. Similarly, they appear too large to be a result of post-war looting activity.

All right, how many bodies can this mass grave hold?
Page 218

Although without intrusive activity (which is not advocated here due to Halacha Law and the ethical issues involved in the disturbance of human remains) it is not possible to conclusively determine the nature of these pits, a strong case can be made for their function based on a comparison with witness plans and accounts, and with similar features at other sites.

We don't even know if this is mass grave ?

My conclusion ?

Without an intrusive method, it is therefore speculation. We do not care about religious laws when it comes to historical and criminal matters. I will be frank: the report made me more sceptical than it convinced me. I have practised archaeology (it is a discipline that I greatly appreciate). and there are several things that bother me, for example, the fact that the quote on page 134 shows that they dug where they thought the gas chamber was and found nothing, which contradicts witness testimony, is honestly disturbing. The rest is just speculation, as far as I can tell. If they found fewer than 300,000 corpses, Even 50,000 it would greatly undermine the Holocaust because it would prove that the testimonies were exaggerated. They don't even know if it's a huge mass grave or something else. In short, you've made me more sceptical than convaince me, Nessie.
But forgive me for saying so, I don't think the revisionists here deny that there may have been burials. Perhaps Callafangers could answer us on this point?

[Nessie]

This thread is about falsification and I did not provide links to the archaeological surveys for that to be the topic under discussion. I have pointed out how archaeology can falsify both claims that there are and there are no mass graves. Evidence gathering is neutral in that respect. However, the results can be inconclusive, to some. Revisionists do accept there were burials, but not that there were hundreds of thousands buried.

[Stubble]

'I didn't provide this for you to look at it and check source, I wanted to use it to falsify my opponents position'



I have, no words.

[Nessie]

'I didn't provide this for you to look at it and check source, I wanted to use it to falsify my opponents position'



I have, no words.

I did provide it for MS to look at and check. I just pointed out that for him to post about the specific archaeological finds is off topic, as the thread is about falsification. If the archaeology found no evidence of disturbed ground and buried remains, then a witness claim of mass graves is proved to be false. If they had found huge mass graves, containing corpses that could be counted, then the witness would be verified.

The mass graves at Katyn verified witness claims about mass murder there. If the Soviets had exhumed the corpses, cremated them and then mixed those cremains back into the ground, so preventing body counts, identification and cause of death, it would be easier to dispute any claims made.