Reply to my "Greatest Hits".

[Nessie]

This forum hates debating the points I raise, which are subject to repeated censorship by quarantining and moving posts to locked threads.

"Argument from incredulity!" and other attempts at "logic"
"Beliefs" aren't necessarily wrong (reply to Nessie)
viewtopic.php?t=245

It was so easy to example the use of that logical fallacy, that the thread was locked and references to it are now banned.

viewtopic.php?t=728

Exterminationist Tactics - a brief analysis
viewtopic.php?t=143

When two sides have two theories, the theory that is backed by the evidence wins. Hence, when chemists disagree whether or not a room could have been used as a gas chamber, if there is evidence the room was used for gassings and there is no evidence of an alternative use, then the chemist who states the room could have been used, is correct.

Logical Fallacies [Remedial education for Nessie]
viewtopic.php?t=97

A thread started by Nazgul, to post about the revisionist use of logical fallacies, where Archie uses AI to try and argue revisionist arguments are not logically flawed.

"Revisionists don't have credentials"
The consequences of a lack of relevant training & expertise.
viewtopic.php?t=179

There is a lot of evidence of Dunning-Kruger amongst revisionists, who do not see that a lack of relevant training should maybe make them think twice.

"Convergence of Evidence" proves the Holocaust
Convergance of Evidence.
viewtopic.php?t=299

That is how history is usually proved, something that revisionists cannot do, which means they are not really revisionists at all.

"Muh eyewitnesses"
List of "direct" eyewitnesses to gassings.
viewtopic.php?t=372

"Zero witnesses support revisionist interpretations"
The Birkenau crematoria: what real 'convergence of evidence' looks like
viewtopic.php?t=315

That zero eyewitnesses can be found to back up any revisionist theories about what the Kremas and AR camps were really used for and that those who worked in the camps agree they were death camps, is apparently not a problem

"We can trust the witnesses bc the gassings are 'corroborated' " (by other witnesses)
Vrba is "corroborated" on a fake Himmler visit (says Nessie)
viewtopic.php?t=69

Corroboration is how historians, journalists, lawyers and other investigators validate evidence and check it for accuracy, credibility and truthfulness. That Jew and Nazi agree and they are corroborated by other evidence, proves mass killings took place.

"It's 'normal' for witnesses to make errors" (so errors don't matter)
Request for Nessie - Primer on these "witness studies"
viewtopic.php?t=108

It is normal for witnesses to make certain errors. That they make them does matter, but it does not prove they all lied.

"We can trust the investigations because it was the Poles not the Soviets"
Did Polish investigations save the day?
viewtopic.php?t=218

The Poles were more thorough in their investigations and much of what they claimed, has since been verified by historians from other countries.

"Overwhelming archaeological evidence"
"56 Olympic Swimming Pools" and Treblinka (Nessie's logic)
viewtopic.php?t=578

The 56 Olympic swimming pools was not about logic, it was a comparison to show how large the area where the main mass graves at TII were located is.

Revisionist methodology is appalling and cannot be defended. For Archie to suggest they are examples of errors and inanities by me, and then to censor the debate by restriction, proves that he, even when he resorts to getting help from AI, cannot defend that methodology.

[Archie]

It's funny that you feel the need to "reply" to what is nothing more than a link to prior threads. People can read those threads and judge for themselves. Your dismal performance speaks for itself.

[Nessie]

It's funny that you feel the need to "reply" to what is nothing more than a link to prior threads. People can read those threads and judge for themselves. Your dismal performance speaks for itself.

They will judge that the dismal performance is by you, unable to argue why the methodology you use, is more accurate and productive than the methodology used by historians. You have no come back to that, hence you're quarantining and limiting of that debate.

You recently claimed, "artificially limiting the pool of evidence to a subset of witnesses is arbitrary and without justification." When I pointed out that the separation of hearsay and eyewitness evidence is a legal distinction and that historians primarily rely on eyewitnesses who saw what they spoke of, again you had no come back.

The reason why revisionists mix hearsay and eyewitness evidence, ignoring the important distinction, is it makes it easier for you to think that the witnesses are all over the place, inconsistent and unbelievable. You hated it when I pointed out that 100% of the eyewitnesses who worked inside an AR camp or A-B Krema speak to the same process. You even denied that and tried to introduce witnesses who never worked or saw inside those places.

Mattogno made a similar evidencing mistake, when he tried to explain away the use of the word special, in documents pertaining to the Kremas. He found documents that used that word, in relation to other places and claimed that meaning also applied to the Kremas. Historians do not introduce irrelevant evidence and instead they determine the meaning of special, by looking at the evidence of how the Kremas functioned.

You are unable to rationalise why you and Mattogno are correct in introducing irrelevant evidence, over evidence that directly pertains to the places under discussion. The dismal performance is yours. Own it.

[Keen]

This forum hates debating the points I raise, which are subject to repeated censorship by quarantining and moving posts to locked threads.

[Keen]

When two sides have two theories, the theory that is backed by the evidence wins.

No retard, it is the one that is backed by facts that wins.

Here is an example:

OPENING / FUNDAMENTAL STATEMENT OF FACT: It is alleged in orthodox historiography that; during WW II, the bodies and burnt remains of hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of Jews were buried in numerous “huge mass graves” at Belzec, Chelmno, Ponary, Sobibor and Treblinka II. However, despite all the deceptive, unsubstantiated allegations to the contrary, the truth is, the largest (in terms of quantity of remains) of the 100 graves in question that are fraudulently alleged to have been “scientifically proven” to currently exist at these five sites, in which verified human remains have been uncovered / tangibly located via bona fide, verifiably honest and conclusively documented archaeology, contained the remains of - ONLY SIX PEOPLE.

Note: Using the information presented on this website and applying legal standards used in U.S. courts, the above opening / fundamental statement of fact, which is written as, and can be defined as - a rebuttable presumption - can be - LEGALLY - ACCEPTED - AS - TRUE - in a U.S. court.

http://thisisaboutscience.com/

retardo:

"Convergence of Evidence" proves the Holocaust
Convergance of Evidence.
viewtopic.php?t=299

That is how history is usually proved

Logical fallacy.

Only if the alleged evidence has enough evidentiary value to establish facts can it be said that it proves something.

There is a mountain of evidence that Santa exists, but, just like "mass grave evidence" it has zero evidentiary value because of the following fact:

If the physical evidence for an alleged crime that - HAS TO EXIST - for the crime to have

actually happened - DOES NOT EXIST - then the alleged crime obviously - DID NOT HAPPEN.

Ergo: The orthodox “pure extermination center” story is - A PROVEN, NONSENSICAL BIG-LIE.

[HansHill]

retardo:

Welcome back buddie

[Keen]

Revisionist methodology is appalling and cannot be defended. For Archie to suggest they are examples of errors and inanities by me, and then to censor the debate by restriction, proves that he, even when he resorts to getting help from AI, cannot defend that methodology.

What's stopping you from joining the forum using your real name roberto?

You could pop right back into the main forum section and continue where you left off.

Oh, that's right, then you would be held to account for your non-stop lies, obfuscations and logical fallacies.

And everyone knows that you lack the courage, integrity and character to post here using your real name.

Oh well, it was a thought.