Convergance of evidence.

[HansHill]

An intelligent, knowledgeable person, knows where their knowledge is lacking. Revisionists are over confident and suffer from Dunning Kruger, they lack the competence to know when their knowledge is lacking.

Who exactly are you suggesting is suffering from the DK effect in this instance? Rudolf? Me? If you mean Rudolf I'd be very interested as to why. If you mean me, it is not the DK effect for a generalist to read material aimed at a general audience. It feels like you are purposely bringing credentialism to bear here, despite this material being aimed at a general audience(!).

I cannot go into the chemical formulas and pH levels with any great knowledge. Neither can HansHill, but his over confidence will not stop him.

Nobody's asking you to "go into" anything other than to use modest comprehension skills and understand material aimed at a generalist audience, and explain why you believe something. Again, since you admitted you cannot do this, that is for you to deal with. Regarding the pH specifically which you botched so abysmally earlier, both Dr Green and Rudolf are extremely clear in their presentation of their arguments as they deal with pH. Dr Green even explains what those formulas mean, so a generalist like you will understand his argument, if you apply modest comprehension skills. Again, your failure here is a reflection on you, not Revisionism.

[Nessie]

The fact remains, I am evidentially and logically correct, that Green wins over Rudolf, because mass gassings are evidenced to have happened.

What has this got to do with convergence of evidence. You are not relying on convergence but a mere belief that the testimonies are truthful.

No, I am relying on the converging, corroborating evidence, from testimonies, documents, physical, archaeological and circumstantial evidence. That corroborating, converging evidence proves gassings happened, therefore Rudolf's conclusion based on his understanding of the chemistry, is wrong.

[Nessie]

...

I will find these missing jews. I will find them, and I will document them.

If you do that, you have managed what no one else has managed since 1945.

[Nessie]

An intelligent, knowledgeable person, knows where their knowledge is lacking. Revisionists are over confident and suffer from Dunning Kruger, they lack the competence to know when their knowledge is lacking.

Who exactly are you suggesting is suffering from the DK effect in this instance? Rudolf? Me? If you mean Rudolf I'd be very interested as to why. If you mean me, it is not the DK effect for a generalist to read material aimed at a general audience. It feels like you are purposely bringing credentialism to bear here, despite this material being aimed at a general audience(!).

Rudolf shows some sign of self-awareness about his limitations, when he concludes his book with the admission, he may be wrong. That is just about the chemistry, he shows no awareness about his limitations as a criminal or historical investigator, since he makes no effort to explain how he can be correct, when all the contemporaneous evidence about the operation of the Kremas, is that they were used for gassings.

As for the Chemistry of Auschwitz and responses from Green etc being aimed at a general audience, they still involve a level of technical discussion, that is above the knowledge of anyone with limited, or no chemistry, such as issues over pH, penetration into the walls and the tables of results.

That you think you can confidently get by, without any specialist or relevant knowledge, is a sign you have DK.

I cannot go into the chemical formulas and pH levels with any great knowledge. Neither can HansHill, but his over confidence will not stop him.

Nobody's asking you to "go into" anything other than to use modest comprehension skills and understand material aimed at a generalist audience, and explain why you believe something. Again, since you admitted you cannot do this, that is for you to deal with. Regarding the pH specifically which you botched so abysmally earlier, both Dr Green and Rudolf are extremely clear in their presentation of their arguments as they deal with pH. Dr Green even explains what those formulas mean, so a generalist like you will understand his argument, if you apply modest comprehension skills. Again, your failure here is a reflection on you, not Revisionism.

I disagree and say that the results presented are not as simplistic as you suggest. You are being over-confident that you have a true grasp on the reports.

[HansHill]

As for the Chemistry of Auschwitz and responses from Green etc being aimed at a general audience, they still involve a level of technical discussion, that is above the knowledge of anyone with limited, or no chemistry, such as issues over pH, penetration into the walls and the tables of results.

That you think you can confidently get by, without any specialist or relevant knowledge, is a sign you have DK.

I don't know what "get by" means in this context. What I use Dr Green and Rudolf's articles for is to read and understand their arguments. Both men are effective communicators, and have demonstrated their arguments very clearly. Since these articles are aimed at a generalist audience, there is nothing here indicating DK in effect.

Additionally I just took a look at that website and I found feedback comments confirming that other people understand the material just fine. One interesting comment was from a "Holocaust-educator-activist" who says the information was used to teach about the Holocaust, and Holocaust Revisionism to their students, precisely because it was so clear. This indicates that the material is presented in such a way that a general audience can understand it, so yet again, the failure is yours to deal with.

https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... 3.php.html

I disagree and say that the results presented are not as simplistic as you suggest. You are being over-confident that you have a true grasp on the reports.

You are repeating that you don't understand either of Dr Green's or Rudolf's arguments. We have suspected that of you for some time now.

[Nessie]

As for the Chemistry of Auschwitz and responses from Green etc being aimed at a general audience, they still involve a level of technical discussion, that is above the knowledge of anyone with limited, or no chemistry, such as issues over pH, penetration into the walls and the tables of results.

That you think you can confidently get by, without any specialist or relevant knowledge, is a sign you have DK.

I don't know what "get by" means in this context. What I use Dr Green and Rudolf's articles for is to read and understand their arguments. Both men are effective communicators, and have demonstrated their arguments very clearly. Since these articles are aimed at a generalist audience, there is nothing here indicating DK in effect.

Additionally I just took a look at that website and I found feedback comments confirming that other people understand the material just fine. One interesting comment was from a "Holocaust-educator-activist" who says the information was used to teach about the Holocaust, and Holocaust Revisionism to their students, precisely because it was so clear. This indicates that the material is presented in such a way that a general audience can understand it, so yet again, the failure is yours to deal with.

https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... 3.php.html

Scientific articles are not just clear, or not clear. What is clear to one may not be to another. Then there are people who confidently, mistakenly, think that the article is clear, but they are mistaken.

I disagree and say that the results presented are not as simplistic as you suggest. You are being over-confident that you have a true grasp on the reports.

You are repeating that you don't understand either of Dr Green's or Rudolf's arguments. We have suspected that of you for some time now.

I understand their arguments, but not necessarily the science behind the argument. It is clear that you do not understand that. You have repeatedly failed to explain why I am wrong to say that since the evidence is that gassings took place, Rudolf is wrong and Green is correct.

[Stubble]

...

I will find these missing jews. I will find them, and I will document them.

If you do that, you have managed what no one else has managed since 1945.

Well, if you are correct, 'Ze Germans' found them, murdered them, and blew their remains into the wind, or threw their remains into the river, or used their remains as fertilizer.

[HansHill]

Scientific articles are not just clear, or not clear. What is clear to one may not be to another. Then there are people who confidently, mistakenly, think that the article is clear, but they are mistaken.

I agree with your concession that these layman articles are not clear to you.

I understand their arguments.

You were asked on page 3 to demonstrate this understanding. We are on page 8.

[Archie]

"Dunning-Kruger" is yet another all-purpose non-argument of Nessie's that he uses to avoid real debate. We could go back and forth all day accusing and counter-accusing each other of D-K. Pointless waste of time. It goes without saying that in a debate, especially a hostile one, that both sides think the other is dumb, wrong, evil etc.

D-K is a result in social psychology about the relationship between self-assessment and objective performance. It has long been noted that self-assessment is not that accurate and often inflated. In surveys strong majorities rate themselves "above average." D-K suggests in addition that people at the high end may underrate themselves, i.e., D-K suggests that self-assessments tend to be more compressed toward average than actual performance. Incidentally, D-K did not suggest that self-assessment is negatively correlated with ability. It's a positive correlation, the line is just flatter. For example, if people were rating their own attractiveness, 1-10, you might get self-assessment scores clustering more toward the middle, say 4-7, whereas independent assessments would show a fuller range.

Of what relevance is this self-assessment literature to the debate over the Holocaust? Not much, imo. The author of a post (or article or book) could have an accurate or inaccurate self-assessment, biased in either direction. So what? I don't care because I can read what they say and judge it for myself. Their own self-assessment is neither here nor there.

In general, people are wildly overconfident in debates. D-K is not the primary reason for this. People project confidence for simple tactical reasons. It's to intimidate the opposition and manipulate undecideds. But the overconfidence gimmick can only take you so far. If the substance of what you are arguing is weak, this will eventually become apparent to thoughtful observers if you are forced to defend your position at length and in detail.

Nessie claims to be an expert on eyewitness behavior and analysis. And implicitly he presents himself as an expert on logic and fallacies. His self-regard is tremendous!
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=179

I will let people judge for themselves whether Nessie's self-assessments are accurate.
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=69
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=108
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=245

[Nessie]

Scientific articles are not just clear, or not clear. What is clear to one may not be to another. Then there are people who confidently, mistakenly, think that the article is clear, but they are mistaken.

I agree with your concession that these layman articles are not clear to you.

I understand their arguments.

You were asked on page 3 to demonstrate this understanding. We are on page 8.

I have been explaining this to you for some time now, but you drag the conversation on, pretending I have not. Rudolf states that the lack of residue means that there cannot have been mass gassings. Green and others disagree and explain why there is a lack of residue, due to the differences in usage between mass gassings and delousing.

You repeatedly dodge that Green and others have evidence of usage on their side, that backs up their chemistry.

[Nessie]

"Dunning-Kruger" is yet another all-purpose non-argument of Nessie's that he uses to avoid real debate. We could go back and forth all day accusing and counter-accusing each other of D-K. Pointless waste of time. It goes without saying that in a debate, especially a hostile one, that both sides think the other is dumb, wrong, evil etc.

Revisionists need to stop confidently asserting that they know better than the experts, as they, with no relevant training or experience, critique historians, archaeologists and forensic scientists.

D-K is a result in social psychology about the relationship between self-assessment and objective performance. It has long been noted that self-assessment is not that accurate and often inflated. In surveys strong majorities rate themselves "above average." D-K suggests in addition that people at the high end may underrate themselves, i.e., D-K suggests that self-assessments tend to be more compressed toward average than actual performance. Incidentally, D-K did not suggest that self-assessment is negatively correlated with ability. It's a positive correlation, the line is just flatter. For example, if people were rating their own attractiveness, 1-10, you might get self-assessment scores clustering more toward the middle, say 4-7, whereas independent assessments would show a fuller range.

Of what relevance is this self-assessment literature to the debate over the Holocaust? Not much, imo. The author of a post (or article or book) could have an accurate or inaccurate self-assessment, biased in either direction. So what? I don't care because I can read what they say and judge it for myself. Their own self-assessment is neither here nor there.

In general, people are wildly overconfident in debates. D-K is not the primary reason for this. People project confidence for simple tactical reasons. It's to intimidate the opposition and manipulate undecideds. But the overconfidence gimmick can only take you so far. If the substance of what you are arguing is weak, this will eventually become apparent to thoughtful observers if you are forced to defend your position at length and in detail.

Nessie claims to be an expert on eyewitness behavior and analysis. And implicitly he presents himself as an expert on logic and fallacies. His self-regard is tremendous!
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=179

I will let people judge for themselves whether Nessie's self-assessments are accurate.
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=69
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=108
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=245

I have relevant training and experience in historical and criminal investigations and the behaviour of witnesses. The attempts to critique me are laughable. The first link is to a thread which ended with my comment, "Archie knows that my point about training and expertise is valid, so he resorts to abuse.". You need to be more self-aware that your lack of expertise means you are more likely to make mistakes.

You cannot explain why the Holocaust should be investigated in a way that is different to how history is normally investigated. No other historical event is investigated to conclude what did not happen. Revisionism is not revisionism when it fails to revise history. Claiming an event did not happen, and leave it at that, is a non-history. You make repeated illogical arguments because you cannot do what is normally expected of any historical or criminal investigation, which is evidence what happened.

[bombsaway]

My eye is slowly turning back to the east. I had been looking at the 'holocaust of bullets' before ruminating on the refugee reports. From the 'chronology of the holocaust' thread, it became apparent to me that this particular bit of ww2 history needed careful examination.

I have only so many hours Bombsaway, I cannot diligently research and give care to all of these matters simultaneously.

My first focus was of course Auschwitz. From there I have been told to go and read many things (like a series of encyclopedias from USHMM for example). This takes time.

I can't help but notice you completely ignored the 4,000,000 in your response. I reiterate, this was not a mistake, it was atrocity propaganda. I also reiterate that the 'convergence of evidence' with regard to the holocaust is a 'convergence of consensus'. I again point at majdanek as an example of atrocity propaganda vs the truth with regard to the history of the holocaust. Now you have 2 examples, Auschwitz, where it was etched into stone '4,000,000' and now majdanek with its eyesore monument full of sand and ashes, and maybe some cremains.

The Holocaust of bullets is what I'm calling divergent evidence. The claim is the Jews were maintained there, but the evidence shows the opposite. The fact that Jews were being extracted from ghettos in the east and mass killed wherever you look also strongly suggests the existence of a mass program of killing, the opposite of maintenance. There are no exceptions, perhaps a few areas where sources are unclear on what happened, mostly when the number of Jews in question is very small.

I don't know what your point is with the 4,000,000. Assuming it was atrocity propaganda, a conscious lie, this still does not sufficiently evidence that other evidence was fabricated and destroyed, witnesses coerced. That 4,000,000 figure is not supported by any evidence, whereas the lower figure can be gleaned by the approximate number of Jews deported to the camp that were never registered or brought into the labor force.

I will find these missing jews. I will find them, and I will document them.

Why are you so confident that you will do something that no revisionist has so far done?

Not that it would make a lick of difference, you will still believe the Jews were brought into the USSR and maintained there.

My main point to you would be your hypocrisy. Whatever criticisms you have of the orthodox narrative, they apply a hundred fold to the one you believe has more validity.

[bombsaway]

...

I will find these missing jews. I will find them, and I will document them.

If you do that, you have managed what no one else has managed since 1945.

Well, if you are correct, 'Ze Germans' found them, murdered them, and blew their remains into the wind, or threw their remains into the river, or used their remains as fertilizer.

Another point of bias/delusion ... we discussed the remains found at Belzec/Chelmno and your best argument was that it didn't necessarily mean so many hundreds of thousands were killed and buried there, not that the amount of remains was necessarily too small.

You're not being honest with yourself.

[Stubble]

If you do that, you have managed what no one else has managed since 1945.

Well, if you are correct, 'Ze Germans' found them, murdered them, and blew their remains into the wind, or threw their remains into the river, or used their remains as fertilizer.

Another point of bias/delusion ... we discussed the remains found at Belzec/Chelmno and your best argument was that it didn't necessarily mean so many hundreds of thousands were killed and buried there, not that the amount of remains was necessarily too small.

You're not being honest with yourself.

Not exactly, I said the grave space was incongruent with the claim of hundreds of thousands.

There is no doubt people died during ww2. There is no doubt that some of those persons were jews. There is no doubt that some of those jews died in captivity, in transit or by executions.

Our main point of divergence revolves around the executions, mainly with regard to scope and method.

You claim a convergence of evidence for a campaign of ethnic extermination. I find that claim dubious and I find the cited documentation suspect.

In light of the lack of corroborative physical evidence, I conclude, not without merit, that the holocaust as we know it is a result of atrocity propaganda.

I am bias, but, I am not delusional or dishonest.

[Archie]

Revisionists need to stop confidently asserting that they know better than the experts, as they, with no relevant training or experience, critique historians, archaeologists and forensic scientists.

If these supposed experts are so smart and we revisionists are so dumb then they should be able to mop the floor with us really easily, on the merits. So let's see it.

You are the only person on the forum who tries to rely on credentials. Your credentials aren't impressive and your boasts are embarrassing.