Pilpul Activities on the CODOH Forum

[Nessie]

And disregard the eyewitnesses?

Why? Do you not think there is an established, widespread, credible way of determining eyewitness truthfulness and accuracy?

Yes - the gas chamber stories are fake.

Do you know what historians, journalists and criminal investigators do, to determine eyewitness truthfulness and accuracy?

[HansHill]

Why? Do you not think there is an established, widespread, credible way of determining eyewitness truthfulness and accuracy?

Yes - the gas chamber stories are fake.

Do you know what historians, journalists and criminal investigators do, to determine eyewitness truthfulness and accuracy?

You mean like this historian?



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Benz

You mean like these criminal investigators?

[Nessie]

Yes - the gas chamber stories are fake.

Do you know what historians, journalists and criminal investigators do, to determine eyewitness truthfulness and accuracy?

You mean like this historian?



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Benz

You mean like these criminal investigators?

Do you know what historians, journalists and criminal investigators do, to determine eyewitness truthfulness and accuracy, such as the claims made by Blaha and about the gas chambers at Dachau?

[HansHill]

The historian and criminal investigators, along with the journalists at the BBC and the Guardian as per the snippets I showed you, did absolutely nothing to prevent the spread of the Dachau gas chamber myth and in fact perpetuated it.

Does this confuse you?

[Nessie]

The historian and criminal investigators, along with the journalists at the BBC and the Guardian as per the snippets I showed you, did absolutely nothing to prevent the spread of the Dachau gas chamber myth and in fact perpetuated it.

Does this confuse you?

No, there are lazy investigators who will repeat myths. However, the articles you showed, the second one makes it clear there were no gas chambers and the first is not specific about gas chambers.

Do you know what historians, journalists and criminal investigators do, to determine eyewitness truthfulness and accuracy?

[HansHill]

The historian and criminal investigators, along with the journalists at the BBC and the Guardian as per the snippets I showed you, did absolutely nothing to prevent the spread of the Dachau gas chamber myth and in fact perpetuated it.

Does this confuse you?

No, there are lazy investigators who will repeat myths. However, the articles you showed, the second one makes it clear there were no gas chambers and the first is not specific about gas chambers.

Do you know what historians, journalists and criminal investigators do, to determine eyewitness truthfulness and accuracy?

"the second one makes it clear there were no gas chambers"

That's David Irving - David Irving clarified the lies and myths perpetuated at Nuremberg. He's exposing the sloppiness and the atrocity propaganda common in the Holocaust.

"first is not specific about gas chambers"

What is there to be specific about? There were no gas chambers at Dachau - nobody was gassed there. "The Dachau gas chambers are a myth" is all that needs to be said, anything else is perpetuating the myth.

"Do you know what historians, journalists and criminal investigators do, to determine eyewitness truthfulness and accuracy?"

Yes - for example at Dachau what the did was ignore all common sense and perpetuated a completely unrealistic set of atrocity propaganda claims as initiated by the eyewitnesses.

Do you have any more questions?

[ConfusedJew]

A small percent of DNA reunions are expected. Unless you make a statistically sound argument, copying even 50 articles, won't prove anything.

I think it is you who needs to first validate your expectation for any particular number threshold of reunions. You have made no such attempt.

Is 51 sufficient? Or is 100? Why 100 instead of 51? You cannot explain any of this, though you'll no doubt run it through ChatGPT.

No, in this case the burden of proof is unquestionably on you when it comes to data and statistics. We already know there were several hundred thousand survivors. Even if 1% of those survivors were reunited, you'd still find more than 1,000 reunions. Finding a dozen in news article is less than meaningless.

Now when it comes to 6 million murdered Jews. If they were not murdered, you'd expect there to be hundreds of thousands, if not more reunions from DNA. DNA testing is an important part of forensics but it shows the opposite of what you think it does.

Regarding the possibility of false positives due to a possible historical population bottleneck, that too suggests the opposite of what you are trying to argue. The fact that you are trying to argue with statistics and genetics, despite misunderstanding basic concepts, strongly suggests to me that you aren't being intellectually honest. If you were being intellectually honest, you'd say something like I'm not very knowledgeable about statistics and genetics, let me look into that and figure out what it is you are trying to say.

When it comes to genetic and statistical analysis, you don't seem to have the basics so let's just avoid those topics. This is why litigation often uses expert witnesses.

[ConfusedJew]

What do you think these things demonstrate? i) the underground morgues being dynamited and ii) emaciated prisoners / bodies being discovered? I want to know what I'm "writing off" before i write them off.

If you are trying to write something off before you even know what it is that you are going to write off, that's clearly a sign of intellectual dishonesty. But let's put that aside, yes if there was no Holocaust why were those things found on the Auschwitz site?

[ConfusedJew]

I missed this earlier.

If you're talking about finding closer relatives (which is generally the case for our discussion), it is harder for Ashkenazi Jews due to this bottleneck. The frequency of false positives creates more problems than the benefit of high detectability of shared/bottlenecked DNA (which only really adds value when you're seeking very distant relatives as closer family will always have enough mutual detectability).

Ya you don't understand the argument that you are making. If there are going to be many false positives, you'd expect to find way more false cases of reunited survivors and you simply don't see even a fraction of as many as you'd expect if the Holocaust was fake. Like not even within the same solar system.

[HansHill]

What do you think these things demonstrate? i) the underground morgues being dynamited and ii) emaciated prisoners / bodies being discovered? I want to know what I'm "writing off" before i write them off.

If you are trying to write something off before you even know what it is that you are going to write off, that's clearly a sign of intellectual dishonesty. But let's put that aside, yes if there was no Holocaust why were those things found on the Auschwitz site?

Reading comprehension, please.

I asked you to clarify before giving you my answer to avoid the scenario you described.

[ConfusedJew]

"not used for systematic mass exterminations"

Glad to hear this concession. Now kindly reflect upon the above what I taught you about people falsely claiming that it was. I'll include more examples here so you know these weren't just "once offs" or accidental whoopsies







And just to remind you, the one from earlier:



Maybe i was mistaken before about you understanding the origin of the fake stories and how they can grow over time, but surely now you must?

This wasn't a concession. It's just me being intellectually honest based on the facts that I see. This was also what I was told when I visited Dachau. However, it seems that there is still debate among historians about what the gas chambers were used for and whether or not they were used to kill some prisoners. It seems pretty clear that at the very least, they were not used nearly as extensively as in some of the other camps.

I see what you are saying now and this maybe warrants its own thread which is worth creating. I will look into this more and do that more later. If you hyper focus on one testimony at the expense of the tens of thousands of others, that is cherry picking. There are many reasons that his testimony could have been mistaken or even untruthful, but if you assume that he was a manipulative liar that tried to gaslight an entire population, that still doesn't negate the entire body of tens of thousands of witnesses. More on this to come later.

[ConfusedJew]

The historian and criminal investigators, along with the journalists at the BBC and the Guardian as per the snippets I showed you, did absolutely nothing to prevent the spread of the Dachau gas chamber myth and in fact perpetuated it.

Does this confuse you?

I am not sure. I will look into this and see what's going on.

[ConfusedJew]

That's David Irving - David Irving clarified the lies and myths perpetuated at Nuremberg. He's exposing the sloppiness and the atrocity propaganda common in the Holocaust.

As a basic rule, I don't have a problem with people referencing other people in this debate or other sources or even ChatGPT or other AI. ChatGPT is fine in my opinion because it's facts and arguments are clearly laid out.

But if you make an appeal to David Irving as an authority, it doesn't do anything for me because I don't find him credible whatsoever. And even if I did, I would want to know why he's arguing what he argued. I would rather just have his argument laid out in front. No need to even reference him if you don't want. Plagiarism doesn't matter to me at all as long as the arguments and evidence are clear.

[ConfusedJew]

What do you think these things demonstrate? i) the underground morgues being dynamited and ii) emaciated prisoners / bodies being discovered? I want to know what I'm "writing off" before i write them off.

If you are trying to write something off before you even know what it is that you are going to write off, that's clearly a sign of intellectual dishonesty. But let's put that aside, yes if there was no Holocaust why were those things found on the Auschwitz site?

Reading comprehension, please.

I asked you to clarify before giving you my answer to avoid the scenario you described.

I don't know exactly what these things demonstrate other than the fact that these camps were not normal prison camps.

Why do you think the concentration camps existed in the first place?

Who did they decide to put in there and why?

Was their internment justifiable in any reasonable sense?

Were they treated fairly?

Were Jews randomly killed for no reason?

Would there ever be a valid reason to kill an inmate? Maybe in self defense, but I don't think that was the case in the vast majority of murders that we saw in the camps.

Do you acknowledge that Jews were randomly killed in the camps? If so, were they targeted more than other kinds of prisoners?

We can start from there.

[HansHill]

That's David Irving - David Irving clarified the lies and myths perpetuated at Nuremberg. He's exposing the sloppiness and the atrocity propaganda common in the Holocaust.

As a basic rule, I don't have a problem with people referencing other people in this debate or other sources or even ChatGPT or other AI. ChatGPT is fine in my opinion because it's facts and arguments are clearly laid out.

But if you make an appeal to David Irving as an authority, it doesn't do anything for me because I don't find him credible whatsoever. And even if I did, I would want to know why he's arguing what he argued. I would rather just have his argument laid out in front. No need to even reference him if you don't want. Plagiarism doesn't matter to me at all as long as the arguments and evidence are clear.

The David Irving book I cited from is called "Nuremberg - The Last Battle" and the citation visible in the screenshot is 435. That citation brings you directly to the affidavits of those three men. You can surely find a copy of the book online and verify his integrity.