Logical Fallacies [Remedial education for Nessie]

[HansHill]

I am not wrong. Regarding supposedly begging the question, Dr Patru failed to explain why.

No offense, but he doesn't need to explain it to you, it makes perfect sense to probably most posters here, from both sides. This is the kind of thing that attracts huge negative attention to your approach, and one of the reasons why you allow for very simple and satisfying slam dunks to your gibberish. Yes, i know you probably don't understand this, but again no offense, everyone else does.

[Nessie]

I am not wrong. Regarding supposedly begging the question, Dr Patru failed to explain why.

No offense, but he doesn't need to explain it to you, it makes perfect sense to probably most posters here, from both sides. This is the kind of thing that attracts huge negative attention to your approach, and one of the reasons why you allow for very simple and satisfying slam dunks to your gibberish. Yes, i know you probably don't understand this, but again no offense, everyone else does.

I would like an explanation. Why is my argument begging the question?

You dodged this;

If engineer A states that it was physically impossible for the Nazis to fire a rocket from northern France to London in 1944 and engineer B states that it was physically possible, how would you determine which theory is correct? Would it not be reasonable to look for evidence of rockets being fired and if evidence is found, conclude engineer B is correct and engineer A was wrong?

Please answer.

[HansHill]

I am not wrong. Regarding supposedly begging the question, Dr Patru failed to explain why.

No offense, but he doesn't need to explain it to you, it makes perfect sense to probably most posters here, from both sides. This is the kind of thing that attracts huge negative attention to your approach, and one of the reasons why you allow for very simple and satisfying slam dunks to your gibberish. Yes, i know you probably don't understand this, but again no offense, everyone else does.

I would like an explanation. Why is my argument begging the question?

You dodged this;

If engineer A states that it was physically impossible for the Nazis to fire a rocket from northern France to London in 1944 and engineer B states that it was physically possible, how would you determine which theory is correct? Would it not be reasonable to look for evidence of rockets being fired and if evidence is found, conclude engineer B is correct and engineer A was wrong?

Please answer.

Sure, since you have asked nicely, i don't mind repeating another slam dunk on you.

Your argument is begging the question because it asserts independently of Dr Green's writing that the conclusion is self-evident. Firstly, this contradicts what Dr Green was attempting to do, in that he was attempting independently of the eyewitnesses, to debunk Rudolf, that is - not to rely on the eyewitnesses at all. Green's hypothesis should hold by itself that gassings took place even if nobody was around to see them. Your fallacy strips him of that, in that he needs external support by eyewitnesses. Secondly, I was asking why you believe Dr Green rebutted Rudolf in their exchanges. Those exchanges took place between 1998 and 2003. I was holding out against all hope that you would cite some meaningful argument from Dr Green in those exchanges, but instead you pointed back 5 decades to eyewitness accounts which was not the question at all.

Re engineers debating rocket trajectory. A good approach would be to first look at the engineering manuals, military archives and the specifications of the technology and equipment at the time to ascertain was this possible. If the known constants show it was possible, then nothing further is needed to address the question, that it was possible. If the constants are inconclusive, we can begin to look at the variables, like weather at the time in question, resources, staffing etc to help get us closer.

If it's still inconclusive, we can look for material evidence of this happening before, while controlling for other parameters such as i) did these rockets land after the period in question, ii) did these rockets originate somewhere else, iii) is there any other known explanation as to how this rocket got here. What we probably wouldn't do is begin to fire WW2 era rockets from France into London as this is too haphazard for obvious reasons.

After examining the constants, the variables and the physical record, you'll have a pretty reasonable account of whether this was possible or not.

Whats more important however is what you would not do. You would not rely on the unreliable eyewitness testimony of known liars and ignore and / or criminalise the rational steps above.

[Nessie]

No offense, but he doesn't need to explain it to you, it makes perfect sense to probably most posters here, from both sides. This is the kind of thing that attracts huge negative attention to your approach, and one of the reasons why you allow for very simple and satisfying slam dunks to your gibberish. Yes, i know you probably don't understand this, but again no offense, everyone else does.

I would like an explanation. Why is my argument begging the question?

You dodged this;

If engineer A states that it was physically impossible for the Nazis to fire a rocket from northern France to London in 1944 and engineer B states that it was physically possible, how would you determine which theory is correct? Would it not be reasonable to look for evidence of rockets being fired and if evidence is found, conclude engineer B is correct and engineer A was wrong?

Please answer.

Sure, since you have asked nicely, i don't mind repeating another slam dunk on you.

Your argument is begging the question because it asserts independently of Dr Green's writing that the conclusion is self-evident. Firstly, this contradicts what Dr Green was attempting to do, in that he was attempting independently of the eyewitnesses, to debunk Rudolf, that is - not to rely on the eyewitnesses at all. Green's hypothesis should hold by itself that gassings took place even if nobody was around to see them. Your fallacy strips him of that, in that he needs external support by eyewitnesses. Secondly, I was asking why you believe Dr Green rebutted Rudolf in their exchanges. Those exchanges took place between 1998 and 2003. I was holding out against all hope that you would cite some meaningful argument from Dr Green in those exchanges, but instead you pointed back 5 decades to eyewitness accounts which was not the question at all.

I have not asserted that the conclusion is self-evident. I have used evidence to determine the conclusion, hence, I am not begging the question. I have used the standard historical and criminal methods of gathering evidence from contemporaneous sources, to evidence gassings place inside the Kremas. It is odd that you think you have a slam dunk, when I am using evidence to prove gassings, I am not claiming they are self-evident. But, you constantly misrepresent my actual arguments.

Green has proven that the residues are too low for clothing to have been deloused inside the Kremas. Rudolf agrees with that, which embarrassingly for many revisionists, ruins their claims that the Kremas were used for delousing. Mattogno included delousing as an action that happened, and many deniers on X argue the same. Green and Rudolf then disagree whether the residue is enough for homicidal gassings to have taken place. Since Rudolf accepts there are residual traces, and basic delousing of rooms to fumigate them would kill people inside those rooms, he should accept that levels are consistent with fatal levels of gas being present. The issue is, how often and to what level. Green claims it was often enough and to a level that accounts for homicidal gassings. Rudolf disagrees. To that extent, I say Green's hypothesis does hold by itself.

Having read the various reports, I believe Green, Markiewicz and Robel, and that there are traces to prove the use of Zyklon B in the Kremas. I do not believe Rudolf's claim the traces are too low, or Leuchter's claim of no traces. That does not mean Green etc have conclusively proved people were gassed, for that, we need other evidential sources, to check if the science is correct.

Re engineers debating rocket trajectory. A good approach would be to first look at the engineering manuals, military archives and the specifications of the technology and equipment at the time to ascertain was this possible. If the known constants show it was possible, then nothing further is needed to address the question, that it was possible. If the constants are inconclusive, we can begin to look at the variables, like weather at the time in question, resources, staffing etc to help get us closer.

If it's still inconclusive, we can look for material evidence of this happening before, while controlling for other parameters such as i) did these rockets land after the period in question, ii) did these rockets originate somewhere else, iii) is there any other known explanation as to how this rocket got here. What we probably wouldn't do is begin to fire WW2 era rockets from France into London as this is too haphazard for obvious reasons.

After examining the constants, the variables and the physical record, you'll have a pretty reasonable account of whether this was possible or not.

Exactly, if there is evidence of rockets being fired from northern France, in the air over the Channel and landing in London, from documents, film, witnesses and physical remains of the rockets in craters, you have proved engineer B is correct.

Whats more important however is what you would not do. You would not rely on the unreliable eyewitness testimony of known liars and ignore and / or criminalise the rational steps above.

Agreed. I do not rely on eyewitnesses. I only use corroborated eyewitnesses and the convergence of ALL forms of evidence to determine if homicidal gassings took place. That includes the forensic evidence provided by Green etc.

[HansHill]

You are beyond self-reflection. This thread will stand for people from both sides to read and see for themselves!