Problem with the Air Raid Shelter Thesis

[curioussoul]

That is eyewitness evidence of the gas chamber being used temporarily as a shelter during an air raid. If Kremas II, III, IV and V had all been converted, as Krema I was, for purpose use as an air raid shelter, there would have been no reason to demolish them. They could have been left in their converted state, as Krema I was.

It's less plausible that Crematoria IV and V would have been used as air raid shelters, as they were both built above ground as 'regular' buildings, compared to the Leichenkellers which were basically concrete "bunkers" much more suitable for that purpose.

Krema I was all on ground level and when it was converted for use as an air raid shelter, an earth bank was formed round the building. It would have been simple to do the same for Kremas IV and V.

No, Crematorium I was much more suitable as an air raid shelter compared to IV and V because of the earth embankment surrounding the structure and the fact that one of the side entrances to the Leichenhalle was a secluded pathway flanked by concrete walls. It also did not have the typical sloped profile roof but a flat concrete roof which would have been much easier to camouflage and sustain.

[Archie]

I agree with you. It is Archie who thinks that "The more likely scenario would be that air raid defense features were incorporated from the beginning...", without any evidence of that being the case.

I am sure Archie will reply. When bombs start falling people will take any protection, any shelter underground would be OK. The Birkenau guards only had trenches to lie into located near their towers according to Schlomo Pivnik. The greatest danger from bombs is the shrapnel of dirt, bomb casings and stones.

There was also the threat of aerial gas attacks. Many structures won't withstand a direct hit from a bomb. But if the British had "drenched Germany with poison gas" as Churchill was contemplating, then you would want shelters with gas tight features.

[Nessie]

I agree with you. It is Archie who thinks that "The more likely scenario would be that air raid defense features were incorporated from the beginning...", without any evidence of that being the case.

I am sure Archie will reply. When bombs start falling people will take any protection, any shelter underground would be OK. The Birkenau guards only had trenches to lie into located near their towers according to Schlomo Pivnik. The greatest danger from bombs is the shrapnel of dirt, bomb casings and stones.

There was also the threat of aerial gas attacks. Many structures won't withstand a direct hit from a bomb. But if the British had "drenched Germany with poison gas" as Churchill was contemplating, then you would want shelters with gas tight features.

Yet again you are exposing the problem with the air raid thesis, a lack of evidence. You prefer to reject what is evidenced to have happened, in favour of unevidenced theories. You should put your bias and opinion aside and follow the evidence.

[Nazgul]

you would want shelters with gas tight features.

Indeed like this WWII airforce shelter at Woodford.

[Archie]

I am sure Archie will reply. When bombs start falling people will take any protection, any shelter underground would be OK. The Birkenau guards only had trenches to lie into located near their towers according to Schlomo Pivnik. The greatest danger from bombs is the shrapnel of dirt, bomb casings and stones.

There was also the threat of aerial gas attacks. Many structures won't withstand a direct hit from a bomb. But if the British had "drenched Germany with poison gas" as Churchill was contemplating, then you would want shelters with gas tight features.

Yet again you are exposing the problem with the air raid thesis, a lack of evidence. You prefer to reject what is evidenced to have happened, in favour of unevidenced theories. You should put your bias and opinion aside and follow the evidence.

The whole point of what we are doing here is to analyze "the evidence," something you are incapable of doing.

You persistently try to cut off the discussion prematurely without dealing with any counterpoints.

You think the evidence for gassings is strong. Fine. That is your opinion. I don't have to agree with you.

[Nessie]

There was also the threat of aerial gas attacks. Many structures won't withstand a direct hit from a bomb. But if the British had "drenched Germany with poison gas" as Churchill was contemplating, then you would want shelters with gas tight features.

Yet again you are exposing the problem with the air raid thesis, a lack of evidence. You prefer to reject what is evidenced to have happened, in favour of unevidenced theories. You should put your bias and opinion aside and follow the evidence.

The whole point of what we are doing here is to analyze "the evidence," something you are incapable of doing.

Sorry, Archie, but it is the other way around. I have relevant training and experience of analysing evidence from university and the police. I use the methods trained, that are proven to work and are logical and can easily explain where you have gone wrong, for example, Miklos Nyiszli. You cherry-picked one thing he said about using the gas chamber to shelter during an air raid, as evidence that was the main used of the Leichenkellers, which is a logically flawed argument. It is not a claim that harms the gassing narrative, as he clearly states they sheltered in the gas chambers. You may think it is sensationalist, but that does not mean therefore he lied. It just means he used emotive language to describe a highly emotional event.

You persistently try to cut off the discussion prematurely without dealing with any counterpoints.

Can you example that?

You think the evidence for gassings is strong. Fine. That is your opinion. I don't have to agree with you.

You are not going to agree with me. You have decided and that is an end to it. No amount of evidence, or reasoning, will cause you to alter your beliefs.

[Archie]

Yet again you are exposing the problem with the air raid thesis, a lack of evidence. You prefer to reject what is evidenced to have happened, in favour of unevidenced theories. You should put your bias and opinion aside and follow the evidence.

The whole point of what we are doing here is to analyze "the evidence," something you are incapable of doing.

Sorry, Archie, but it is the other way around. I have relevant training and experience of analysing evidence from university and the police. I use the methods trained, that are proven to work and are logical and can easily explain where you have gone wrong, for example, Miklos Nyiszli. You cherry-picked one thing he said about using the gas chamber to shelter during an air raid, as evidence that was the main used of the Leichenkellers, which is a logically flawed argument. It is not a claim that harms the gassing narrative, as he clearly states they sheltered in the gas chambers. You may think it is sensationalist, but that does not mean therefore he lied. It just means he used emotive language to describe a highly emotional event.

You persistently try to cut off the discussion prematurely without dealing with any counterpoints.

Can you example that?

You think the evidence for gassings is strong. Fine. That is your opinion. I don't have to agree with you.

You are not going to agree with me. You have decided and that is an end to it. No amount of evidence, or reasoning, will cause you to alter your beliefs.

An example? Literally your entire post history.

Your argument is: "The Holocaust is true because it is evidenced." Then if we try to discuss the evidence you say we aren't allowed. Because rejecting evidence is a fallacy. Or because errors don't matter. Or because you say we must defer to your supposed credentials (lol). All of that is an attempt to avoid having an actual debate. You just assert that you are correct and repeat it over and over and demand that everyone agree with you. None of the other anti-revisionists do that.

[Nessie]

The whole point of what we are doing here is to analyze "the evidence," something you are incapable of doing.

Sorry, Archie, but it is the other way around. I have relevant training and experience of analysing evidence from university and the police. I use the methods trained, that are proven to work and are logical and can easily explain where you have gone wrong, for example, Miklos Nyiszli. You cherry-picked one thing he said about using the gas chamber to shelter during an air raid, as evidence that was the main used of the Leichenkellers, which is a logically flawed argument. It is not a claim that harms the gassing narrative, as he clearly states they sheltered in the gas chambers. You may think it is sensationalist, but that does not mean therefore he lied. It just means he used emotive language to describe a highly emotional event.

You persistently try to cut off the discussion prematurely without dealing with any counterpoints.

Can you example that?

You think the evidence for gassings is strong. Fine. That is your opinion. I don't have to agree with you.

You are not going to agree with me. You have decided and that is an end to it. No amount of evidence, or reasoning, will cause you to alter your beliefs.

An example? Literally your entire post history.

Your argument is: "The Holocaust is true because it is evidenced."

That is a logically sound argument, or do you disagree?

Then if we try to discuss the evidence you say we aren't allowed.

You are allowed to discuss the evidence. My actual argument is that a discussion of the evidence would be vastly improved if you had a greater knowledge and understanding of evidencing. In particular, around witness evidence, of which revisionist display great ignorance.

Because rejecting evidence is a fallacy.

It is a fallacy for you to reject evidence merely because you don't believe it. For example, revisionist rejections of documents as supposedly forged or faked. That is done by revisionists without even seeing the original, or establishing its provenance.

Or because errors don't matter.

Again, you are showing your lack of understanding of evidencing. What matters is, are the errors explainable? For example, when people estimate the number of people who were packed inside a gas chambers. If they claim a number that is physically impossible, is that explainable? The answer is yes, as multiple studies of estimation of the size of crowds find that we are not very good at it and are prone to overestimate. Now we know why the witness made a mistake. You misinterpret the overestimation to mean the witness lied. I have proved that they made a mistake, and it is an easy mistake to make.

Or because you say we must defer to your supposed credentials (lol).

You don't defer to me, nor do I expect you to. What I would like you to do is read and learn from what I have shown you, so that you become less likely to rely on logical fallacies and gain better understanding of evidencing, so that your interpretation of the evidence improves.

All of that is an attempt to avoid having an actual debate.

What do you mean by an actual debate? Why is me pointing out the errors you make in the debate not acceptable?

You just assert that you are correct and repeat it over and over and demand that everyone agree with you. None of the other anti-revisionists do that.

They do, both Sanity Check and bombsaway regularly point out mistakes revisionist have made regarding the evidence and their interpretation of the evidence.

[Archie]

No, Nessie. What you do is different than the others. Most of the others at least try to debate the evidence whereas you simply roll excuses for why revisionists aren't allowed to challenge the evidence.

[Nessie]

No, Nessie. What you do is different than the others. Most of the others at least try to debate the evidence whereas you simply roll excuses for why revisionists aren't allowed to challenge the evidence.

I concentrate more on explaining why revisionist treatment of the evidence is wrong, than the others. You are allowed to challenge the evidence, you just need to ensure your challenge is reasonable. Most of the time it is not. The best example of that, is how witness evidence is challenged by revisionists. They fail to take into account any studies about witness behaviour, memory and recollection. With all due respect to historians Sanity Check and bombsaway, they have never interviewed a witness and most of my knowledge of witnesses came from my time in the police. I bring a different level of knowledge.

[curioussoul]

You don't defer to me, nor do I expect you to. What I would like you to do is read and learn from what I have shown you, so that you become less likely to rely on logical fallacies and gain better understanding of evidencing, so that your interpretation of the evidence improves.

There is no evidence of your supposed credentials. You would have to cite actual literature on the subjects of historiographic research and witness testimony in order to prove your point.

[Nessie]

You don't defer to me, nor do I expect you to. What I would like you to do is read and learn from what I have shown you, so that you become less likely to rely on logical fallacies and gain better understanding of evidencing, so that your interpretation of the evidence improves.

There is no evidence of your supposed credentials. You would have to cite actual literature on the subjects of historiographic research and witness testimony in order to prove your point.

I do. When revisionists use logical fallacies in their supposed research, I point them out and I link to evidence about witnesses, such as recently with Archie about interview mirroring.

[Archie]

You don't defer to me, nor do I expect you to. What I would like you to do is read and learn from what I have shown you, so that you become less likely to rely on logical fallacies and gain better understanding of evidencing, so that your interpretation of the evidence improves.

There is no evidence of your supposed credentials. You would have to cite actual literature on the subjects of historiographic research and witness testimony in order to prove your point.

I do. When revisionists use logical fallacies in their supposed research, I point them out and I link to evidence about witnesses, such as recently with Archie about interview mirroring.

You have no clue at all about logic. I can tell just from the way you form your thoughts that you don't have a background in mathematics, philosophy, computer science, or anything like that. Your understanding of "logic" is nothing more than a very select few fallacies (always the same ones) that you heard somewhere which you repeat ad nauseum, and which you apply incorrectly more often than not. Your interpretation of "argument from incredulity" is absurdly broad and objectively wrong. You think pointing out contradictions is "incredulity" fallacy. You think looking at relevant data and doing math is "incredulity" fallacy. That's beyond ridiculous. Seriously, go email a philosophy professor an example of a revisionist style argument (with the context changed so as not to bias things) and ask them if they're "arguments from incredulity." See what they say. Revisionist style arguments are used ALL THE TIME in countless contexts.

Your understanding of how to analyze testimony is also hopelessly inept as is your shallow use of academic citations. I can tell you are literally just looking for papers on Google which you haven't even read. You do not follow any of that literature. And usually you are making some utterly trivial point that everyone is already aware of. "Witnesses are often inaccurate with dates, distances, etc" Yes, everyone already knows this. But what you do is you take a trivial observation like that and then try to use it as an excuse to overlook ANY blunder no matter how huge. The allowances you make for these witnesses are so generous that it would be impossible to discredit any witness ever under your rules.

A recent example of your "expert" skills at witness critique
viewtopic.php?t=69

Regarding your "mirroring" thing, that is yet more incompetence on your part. The issue under discussion was whether investigators or interrogators influence witnesses. Prufer was cited as an example where his "confessions" use similar language as the Extraordinary State Commission and other Soviet propaganda. Your reply is that this is "normal."

Here's one of the papers you've linked on this (which you obviously had just googled and had not actually read). It clearly is saying that influencing the subject is a PROBLEM. It's something to be minimized to the extent possible. You say, "this is a normal phenomenon." Yes, it is, and it isn't considered to be a good thing. And keep in mind that this is talking about very subtle, unintentional influence. The Soviets were anything but subtle.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10 ... lCode=jaba

Interviewing is the most frequently used qualitative research method for gathering data. Although interviews vary across different epistemological perspectives, questions are central to all interviewing genres. This article focuses on the potential for the wording of interview questions to lead and unduly influence, or bias, the interviewee’s responses. This underacknowledged phenomenon affects the trustworthiness of findings and has implications for knowledge claims made by researchers, particularly in research that aims to elicit interviewees’ subjective experience. We highlight the problem of the influence of interview questions on data; provide a typology of how interview questions can lead responses; and present a method, the “cleanness rating,” that facilitates reflexivity by enabling researchers to review and assess the influence of their interview questions. This clarifies the researcher’s role in the production of interview data and contributes to methodological transparency.

This completely undermines the argument you were making and you didn't even notice, again, because you didn't look at it in any detail.

[Archie]

Nessie, since you insist on trying to pull rank on everyone all the time and demand that we defer to your credentials, I'm going to have to ask you to be more specific about what these special qualifications are.

You have said you were with the police. What rank did you reach? Were you a detective?

[Nessie]

There is no evidence of your supposed credentials. You would have to cite actual literature on the subjects of historiographic research and witness testimony in order to prove your point.

I do. When revisionists use logical fallacies in their supposed research, I point them out and I link to evidence about witnesses, such as recently with Archie about interview mirroring.

You have no clue at all about logic. I can tell....

That is a big part of your problem. You rely far too much on your opinion and instinct, rather than evidencing.

... just from the way you form your thoughts that you don't have a background in mathematics, philosophy, computer science, or anything like that.

A year long course at university in moral and religious philosophy.

Your understanding of "logic" is nothing more than a very select few fallacies (always the same ones) that you heard somewhere which you repeat ad nauseum,

It is revisionists who repeatedly use the same logically flawed arguments, ad nauseam.

... and which you apply incorrectly more often than not.

Any specific examples?

Your interpretation of "argument from incredulity" is absurdly broad and objectively wrong.

Again, any specific examples? At the moment, joshk246 is using that fallacy in his argument about wood at the AR camps. "The cremation methods and materials used(old train tracks) sound absolutely ridiculous anyway, but no presence of huge containers of wood and no massive storage area really seals the deal."

You think pointing out contradictions is "incredulity" fallacy.

Any example, or are you just going to make unevidenced assertions?

You think looking at relevant data and doing math is "incredulity" fallacy. That's beyond ridiculous.

It is the fallacy of incredulity, when the maths is now many people fit into a space and the argument is that a witness has made a ridiculous claim as to the numbers, therefore they lied. Multiple studies find that people are not good at estimating the size of crowds, so the witness merely over-estimated how many people fit inside a gas chamber.

Seriously, go email a philosophy professor an example of a revisionist style argument (with the context changed so as not to bias things) and ask them if they're "arguments from incredulity." See what they say. Revisionist style arguments are used ALL THE TIME in countless contexts.

Again, any example of a revisionist style argument being used elsewhere?

Your understanding of how to analyze testimony is also hopelessly inept as is your shallow use of academic citations. I can tell you are literally just looking for papers on Google which you haven't even read. You do not follow any of that literature. And usually you are making some utterly trivial point that everyone is already aware of. "Witnesses are often inaccurate with dates, distances, etc" Yes, everyone already knows this.

So why do revisionists use those mistakes to claim they prove the witnesses lied?

But what you do is you take a trivial observation like that and then try to use it as an excuse to overlook ANY blunder no matter how huge.

Again, any specific example?

The allowances you make for these witnesses are so generous that it would be impossible to discredit any witness ever under your rules.

A recent example of your "expert" skills at witness critique
viewtopic.php?t=69

I easily explained why Vrba got the date and who was visiting wrong. He admitted he was wrong! Being wrong does not make him a liar. Admitting he was wrong, improves his credibility.

Regarding your "mirroring" thing, that is yet more incompetence on your part. The issue under discussion was whether investigators or interrogators influence witnesses. Prufer was cited as an example where his "confessions" use similar language as the Extraordinary State Commission and other Soviet propaganda. Your reply is that this is "normal."

Here's one of the papers you've linked on this (which you obviously had just googled and had not actually read). It clearly is saying that influencing the subject is a PROBLEM. It's something to be minimized to the extent possible. You say, "this is a normal phenomenon." Yes, it is, and it isn't considered to be a good thing. And keep in mind that this is talking about very subtle, unintentional influence. The Soviets were anything but subtle.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10 ... lCode=jaba

Interviewing is the most frequently used qualitative research method for gathering data. Although interviews vary across different epistemological perspectives, questions are central to all interviewing genres. This article focuses on the potential for the wording of interview questions to lead and unduly influence, or bias, the interviewee’s responses. This underacknowledged phenomenon affects the trustworthiness of findings and has implications for knowledge claims made by researchers, particularly in research that aims to elicit interviewees’ subjective experience. We highlight the problem of the influence of interview questions on data; provide a typology of how interview questions can lead responses; and present a method, the “cleanness rating,” that facilitates reflexivity by enabling researchers to review and assess the influence of their interview questions. This clarifies the researcher’s role in the production of interview data and contributes to methodological transparency.

This completely undermines the argument you were making and you didn't even notice, again, because you didn't look at it in any detail.

Mirroring is a problem, which I made clear when I said, "We were warned to look out for it in interview training, as it could create the impression undue influence had been applied to the interviewee." Of course, mirroring affects the trustworthiness of a claim. If Prufer's testimony was the only evidence, because he was interviewed by the Soviets and he is mirroring, then I would dismiss his evidence. The reason why I do not, is because his evidence is corroborated by other evidence from witnesses who worked inside the Kremas, documents and circumstantial evidence pertaining to their operation.

You try to use mirroring to dismiss Prufer because he says what you do not want to hear. You should follow the evidence, to ascertain if he is corroborated or not.