Problem with the Air Raid Shelter Thesis

[Nessie]

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?

My relevant qualifications are, MA(Hons) modern history and in the police I reached the rank of Sgt. I completed detective training (plus additional interview training), but decided not to continue in CID and moved to the Scottish highlands (hence Nessie). Cops in rural posts will often do the work normally completed by detectives, such as recorded interviews of suspects and basic crime scenes examinations, because of their remoteness. I would also fill in as court officer, so have seen hundreds of people giving evidence at court and how solicitors and Sheriffs react to and treat their testimony. I also gave evidence countless times.

What are your relevant qualifications?

[Archie]

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

So some verbal gen ed course, not formal logic. Right. And you think that's enough of a background in logic to talk down to everyone else like an arrogant ass?

According to the guys on RODOH, you didn't spam fallacies initially. It's something you picked up later online, not at university.

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."

In that thread, he is presenting more of an argument than just that. You have plucked one sentence and are getting exciting over the phrase "sounds absolutely ridiculous." Whenever a revisionist says something sounds/seems/looks etc or we say "I think" or we say something is unlikely etc you immediately jump to this being an incredulity fallacy when it is not.

"X sounds ridiculous" - This is not a fallacy. It's not a complete argument one way or the other. And usually when people say things like this they don't intend it to be a standalone argument. It's just a statement.
"X is false because it sounds ridiculous" - As phrased you could call this a fallacy. I would simply call it an unsupported conclusion because there isn't really any explanation for why it's ridiculous/implausible.
"X is probably false because ... [data and reasoning]" This is fine. The support may or may not hold up, but you can't say this is INHERENTLY fallacious which is what you do.

Josh made the point that there's no sign of enormous storage facilities for wood. That's a perfectly valid point and if you want to counter it you need to eg produce an air photo showing all the wood or giving your explanation for why it's not there. To dismiss valid points and evidence because "incredulity fallacy" is unacceptable and if you keep doing it your posting privileges will be restricted.

A reminder from the rules:

Observe the principle of charity. "In philosophy and rhetoric, the principle of charity or charitable interpretation requires interpreting a speaker's statements in the most rational way possible and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible interpretation. In its narrowest sense, the goal of this methodological principle is to avoid attributing irrationality, logical fallacies, or falsehoods to the others' statements, when a coherent, rational interpretation of the statements is available." ("Principle of charity," Wikipedia)

Shape up if you want to keep posting here.

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

I have given you several before.

The Rolling Stone UVA rape hoax
Many people identified it as a hoax immediately based primarily on internal contradictions in the text, common sense, etc. As I recall your explanation was that what they did was(!) "fallacy of incredulity" they merely "got lucky." You thought they should have waited around for the authorities to tell them it was a hoax (also your position with the Holocaust).
https://rodoh.info/thread/679/case-stud ... stone-hoax

The Cerro Torre-Cesare Maestri controversy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerro_Torre
Many mountaineers have long said that Maestri did not actually summit Cerro Torre in 1959 as he claimed. There has been controversy over this. Only in the 21st century does it now seem more or less commonly accepted that the Maestri's claim was bogus. If you read the arguments debunking Maestri, they argue for example 1) his account of the climb has inconsistencies, in particular, he described certain stretches as hard or easy but later climbers found the exact opposite, suggesting he was guessing. 2) Arguments about his implied speeds etc being implausible. 3) Lack of physical evidence like climbing gear above a certain point on the route. These are "revisionist style" arguments which are the same arguments everyone uses when they debunk something. For this one as I recall, you admitted to me that these were "incredulity" arguments but you said it was okay because the mountaineers are experts but revisionists aren't (a real example of a fallacy )

Santa Claus Present Delivery Speed
The argument that Santa can't be real because it's impossible to deliver that many presents in one night is the exact same type of argument revisionists make all the time. It's not a fallacy. It's a good, rational argument. When I asked you if that Santa argument was an "argument from incredulity" as I recall you dodged the question and said it was different because the numbers for Santa are even more outlandish than the Holocaust numbers (not sure how you'd even know since you refuse to consider calculations to begin with). So then it seems you position is that it's okay do an incredulity fallacy on Santa as long as it's something totally impossible. But if there is any remote possibility at all, like 1 in a billion, then we are committing a fallacy. In reality, lots and lots of arguments rely on showing merely that things are wildly improbable or would require amazing coincidences.

As for the other examples you asked for, it's bad enough I have to read your current posts. I'm not going through your post history looking for examples of every sort of nonsense that you spout. I gave my opinion of your posting. Others are free to draw their own conclusions. (Based on conversions I've had, people mostly seem to agree with me, on both sides.)

[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?

My relevant qualifications are, MA(Hons) modern history and in the police I reached the rank of Sgt. I completed detective training (plus additional interview training), but decided not to continue in CID and moved to the Scottish highlands (hence Nessie). Cops in rural posts will often do the work normally completed by detectives, such as recorded interviews of suspects and basic crime scenes examinations, because of their remoteness. I would also fill in as court officer, so have seen hundreds of people giving evidence at court and how solicitors and Sheriffs react to and treat their testimony. I also gave evidence countless times.

What are your relevant qualifications?

If you notice, we revisionists don't tend to discuss our educational and professional backgrounds very much. You assume we don't have any, but you know very well why we don't discuss it. In the 80s when most revisionists were open, the IHR board was mostly PhDs.

I'm not going to get into my background. Feel free to assume that I deliver pizzas if you like. Who cares? Ultimately, it's the arguments that matter, not who is making them. I don't have a degree in history, but I hardly think my views should be dismissed because I didn't make a poor career choice

That you have an MA in history is frankly amazing to me given your post quality. But standards are not that high at a lot of places so I can believe that you slipped through. The jump from an MA to a PhD is also considerable. There will be a lot more variance at the MA level. If anything, I think you having an MA in history and not knowing even the most basic things about analyzing testimonies rather proves the point.

[Nessie]

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

So some verbal gen ed course, not formal logic. Right. And you think that's enough of a background in logic to talk down to everyone else like an arrogant ass?

What relevant qualifications do you have? Who are you to sit in judgement of all the historians, archaeologists, lawyers and journalists, with their relevant training and experience and announce they have all got it wrong? I leave the arrogance to you.

According to the guys on RODOH, you didn't spam fallacies initially. It's something you picked up later online, not at university.

I first posted on TSSF and very quickly started to point out the flaws in revisionist arguments. I did learn more about the logical fallacies that were being employed. What is wrong with self learning about a subject? You could do with some of that!

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."

In that thread, he is presenting more of an argument than just that. You have plucked one sentence and are getting exciting over the phrase "sounds absolutely ridiculous." Whenever a revisionist says something sounds/seems/looks etc or we say "I think" or we say something is unlikely etc you immediately jump to this being an incredulity fallacy when it is not.

What does joshk246 present to back up his incredulity? The answer is his asserted opinion and more argument, rather than evidence.

"X sounds ridiculous" - This is not a fallacy. It's not a complete argument one way or the other. And usually when people say things like this they don't intend it to be a standalone argument. It's just a statement.
"X is false because it sounds ridiculous" - As phrased you could call this a fallacy. I would simply call it an unsupported conclusion because there isn't really any explanation for why it's ridiculous/implausible.

Either way it is phrased, to assert something did not happen, because it sounds ridiculous, is an illogical argument.

"X is probably false because ... [data and reasoning]" This is fine. The support may or may not hold up, but you can't say this is INHERENTLY fallacious which is what you do.

That is not an illogical argument. The argument now stands or falls on the "data and reasoning" as you call it, but really you need evidence. When "data and reasoning" is just opinion and more argument, then the argument is illogical. Where revisionists fail, is their lack of evidence. When revisionists have tried to evidence what happened, they split into competing theories, such as the AR camps were property sorting centres, customs/border camps, transit camps or hygiene stations. None of those theories have supporting evidence, primarily there is no witness to any of it. Despite millions of people entering into those camps, revisionists cannot find a single person who speaks to a process that did not involve gassings.

Josh made the point that there's no sign of enormous storage facilities for wood. That's a perfectly valid point and if you want to counter it you need to eg produce an air photo showing all the wood or giving your explanation for why it's not there. To dismiss valid points and evidence because "incredulity fallacy" is unacceptable and if you keep doing it your posting privileges will be restricted.

Joshk246 needs evidence, not just a point, not matter how valid or not that point is. Arguing from only a point, with no evidence, is the argument from incredulity. I don't need to counter his point with evidence, that is you reversing the burden of proof. It is up to him to evidence that there was no wood storage at the camp and that the mass pyres did not happen.

I have provided evidence that staff at Sobibor used local Polish sawmills to provide suitable wood for camp construction. It stands to reason that they could also supply suitable wood for pyres, wood was a major source of fuel, what with Poland being covered in huge forests. That we do not know anything about how the delivered wood was strored, is not a matter of incredulity, it is just something that there is no evidence about.

A reminder from the rules:

Observe the principle of charity. "In philosophy and rhetoric, the principle of charity or charitable interpretation requires interpreting a speaker's statements in the most rational way possible and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible interpretation. In its narrowest sense, the goal of this methodological principle is to avoid attributing irrationality, logical fallacies, or falsehoods to the others' statements, when a coherent, rational interpretation of the statements is available." ("Principle of charity," Wikipedia)

Shape up if you want to keep posting here.

That is a warning to not use the strawman logical fallacy, something revisionists should learn from. As for your next point, it is fine to be suspicious. What is important is what is done with that suspicion. That is where revisionists fail.

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

I have given you several before.

The Rolling Stone UVA rape hoax
Many people identified it as a hoax immediately based primarily on internal contradictions in the text, common sense, etc. As I recall your explanation was that what they did was(!) "fallacy of incredulity" they merely "got lucky." You thought they should have waited around for the authorities to tell them it was a hoax (also your position with the Holocaust).
https://rodoh.info/thread/679/case-stud ... stone-hoax

There was a lack of evidence that a rape had taken place and the accuser's testimony was inconsistent. That often happens with rape accusations. That one gained iconic hoax status because of The Rolling Stone involvement. The lack of evidence a rape took place makes that incomparable with mass gassings, for which there is a lot of evidence.

Holocaust denial is the equivalent of a group of people who deny that there was a rape, when the students admit that the rape happened, there is physical evidence it happened and there is evidence the students tried to destroy evidence and hide their actions.

The Cerro Torre-Cesare Maestri controversy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerro_Torre
Many mountaineers have long said that Maestri did not actually summit Cerro Torre in 1959 as he claimed. There has been controversy over this. Only in the 21st century does it now seem more or less commonly accepted that the Maestri's claim was bogus. If you read the arguments debunking Maestri, they argue for example 1) his account of the climb has inconsistencies, in particular, he described certain stretches as hard or easy but later climbers found the exact opposite, suggesting he was guessing. 2) Arguments about his implied speeds etc being implausible. 3) Lack of physical evidence like climbing gear above a certain point on the route. These are "revisionist style" arguments which are the same arguments everyone uses when they debunk something. For this one as I recall, you admitted to me that these were "incredulity" arguments but you said it was okay because the mountaineers are experts but revisionists aren't (a real example of a fallacy )

The mountaineers did what revisionists have failed to do. They went and gathered evidence. They found no climbing equipment above a certain point and the climb did not match the witness description. That is corroborating evidence to prove the climb did not take place. Revisionists have failed to produce evidence from the AR camps, or A-B Kremas, to disprove gassings. No witnesses, documents, anything. As I said above, when they theorise, they come up with contradictory alternative events, none of which can be evidenced to have taken place.

You say "same arguments everyone uses when they debunk something" but people who know what they are doing, such as the climbers, use evidence, not argument.

Santa Claus Present Delivery Speed
The argument that Santa can't be real because it's impossible to deliver that many presents in one night is the exact same type of argument revisionists make all the time. It's not a fallacy. It's a good, rational argument. When I asked you if that Santa argument was an "argument from incredulity" as I recall you dodged the question and said it was different because the numbers for Santa are even more outlandish than the Holocaust numbers (not sure how you'd even know since you refuse to consider calculations to begin with). So then it seems you position is that it's okay do an incredulity fallacy on Santa as long as it's something totally impossible. But if there is any remote possibility at all, like 1 in a billion, then we are committing a fallacy. In reality, lots and lots of arguments rely on showing merely that things are wildly improbable or would require amazing coincidences.

The Santa comparison is a false analogy, another logical fallacy. Santa is undoubtedly physically impossible. Germans converting a room with gas tight doors, a ventilation system, some holes in the roof and a mesh insertion device are working well within what is physically impossible. Germans designing and building a gas chambers out of bricks, concrete, wood, tiles, pipes, valves and an engine is not 1 in a billion. Just because you do not believe that could happen, does not therefore mean it did not happen.

As for the other examples you asked for, it's bad enough I have to read your current posts. I'm not going through your post history looking for examples of every sort of nonsense that you spout. I gave my opinion of your posting. Others are free to draw their own conclusions. (Based on conversions I've had, people mostly seem to agree with me, on both sides.)

Your opinion, or mine is not important. What is important is what is evidenced to have happened. You are clearly led by opinion and argument, as I keep on having to point out to you that you need evidence.

[Nessie]

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?

My relevant qualifications are, MA(Hons) modern history and in the police I reached the rank of Sgt. I completed detective training (plus additional interview training), but decided not to continue in CID and moved to the Scottish highlands (hence Nessie). Cops in rural posts will often do the work normally completed by detectives, such as recorded interviews of suspects and basic crime scenes examinations, because of their remoteness. I would also fill in as court officer, so have seen hundreds of people giving evidence at court and how solicitors and Sheriffs react to and treat their testimony. I also gave evidence countless times.

What are your relevant qualifications?

If you notice, we revisionists don't tend to discuss our educational and professional backgrounds very much. You assume we don't have any, but you know very well why we don't discuss it. In the 80s when most revisionists were open, the IHR board was mostly PhDs.

I'm not going to get into my background. Feel free to assume that I deliver pizzas if you like. Who cares?

If someone who had never delivered a pizza or indeed anything else, arrived at your work and told you that you were all doing it wrong, and they knew better than you about deliveries, what would think of their credibility? Would you take them seriously?

Ultimately, it's the arguments that matter, not who is making them. I don't have a degree in history, but I hardly think my views should be dismissed because I didn't make a poor career choice

Your lack of relevant training makes you more likely to make mistakes. That simple, obvious point has clearly passed you by.

That you have an MA in history is frankly amazing to me given your post quality. But standards are not that high at a lot of places so I can believe that you slipped through. The jump from an MA to a PhD is also considerable. There will be a lot more variance at the MA level. If anything, I think you having an MA in history and not knowing even the most basic things about analyzing testimonies rather proves the point.

What training have you got in analysing testimonies?
Please give me an example of where I did not know the basics about analysing testimony.

Only I have pointed out interview mirroring, or the studies into witness reliability about dates, time, distances and the size of crowds, in the discussions about witness testimony.

[Nazgul]

My relevant qualifications are, MA(Hons) modern history and in the police I reached the rank of Sgt. I completed detective training (plus additional interview training), but decided not to continue in CID and moved to the Scottish highlands (hence Nessie). Cops in rural posts will often do the work normally completed by detectives, such as recorded interviews of suspects and basic crime scenes examinations, because of their remoteness. I would also fill in as court officer, so have seen hundreds of people giving evidence at court and how solicitors and Sheriffs react to and treat their testimony. I also gave evidence countless times.

What are your relevant qualifications?

Being polizei is not a qualification but a job, albeit an important one. It is accepted you did training, but that is not up to the standards required for recruitement into say MI5. Congratulations on being appointed as Sgt but you were not an investigator nor were you a detective. Being a country cop you did preliminary investigations sent to higher authority. All country cops have to be prosecutors to some extent. I applaud you for your service to law enforcement and also your efforts in your degree. Who knows your experience on these forums might make for a higher qualification.
An interesting note, many people who do not have degrees claim they have one. Many people on the forums you interact, have far higher qualifications in all fields than you have. That said, everyone is entitled to express their views.

[joshk246]

What does joshk246 present to back up his incredulity? The answer is his asserted opinion and more argument, rather than evidence.

Nessie, why are you maliciously focusing on my conclusion instead of debating me on the actual argument above it?

My actual argument was the non existent weather tight wood storage facilities at any AR camp, and also the contradictory statements from 'witnesses'-ie no mention of anyone constantly tending the fires; but they were supposedly burning almost 24/7.
As for the non-existent loggings and your claims of "Polish sawmills"

As for Treblinka, the 100 inmates of the forest unit would have cut (100 x 0.63 tons/day/man =) 63 tons of wood each day; to reach the required amount, it would have taken them (198,842.6 tons ÷ 63 tons/day=) 3,156 days; or more than eight and a half years, but they only had 122 days to do it.

A chart on "Wood Cutting for the Economic Forestry Year 1944" ("Holzeinschlag des Forstwirtschaftsjahres 1944") shows the situation as of January 31, 1944 for the Warsaw District. The amount of wood to be cut was 279,730 solid cubic meters (fm); the amount actually cut was 187,173fm. The graph regarding "Wood Transport of the wood cut 1943-1944", with reference to the same date, gives the amount of wood that had been taken away: it amounted to 90,929fm.

see Mattogno, The "Operation Reinhardt" Camps pg 285, 283.

[Archie]

I first posted on TSSF and very quickly started to point out the flaws in revisionist arguments. I did learn more about the logical fallacies that were being employed. What is wrong with self learning about a subject? You could do with some of that!

"What is wrong with self learning about a subject?" You tell me. You're the one who's arguing that.

The mountaineers did what revisionists have failed to do. They went and gathered evidence. They found no climbing equipment above a certain point and the climb did not match the witness description. That is corroborating evidence to prove the climb did not take place. Revisionists have failed to produce evidence from the AR camps, or A-B Kremas, to disprove gassings. No witnesses, documents, anything. As I said above, when they theorise, they come up with contradictory alternative events, none of which can be evidenced to have taken place.

You say "same arguments everyone uses when they debunk something" but people who know what they are doing, such as the climbers, use evidence, not argument.

Where did you get this bizarre idea that revisionists aren't interested in evidence? We make use of every bit of information we are permitted to see.

You don't understand what evidence is. It's very broad.

"that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof."

Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

The Santa comparison is a false analogy, another logical fallacy. Santa is undoubtedly physically impossible. Germans converting a room with gas tight doors, a ventilation system, some holes in the roof and a mesh insertion device are working well within what is physically impossible. Germans designing and building a gas chambers out of bricks, concrete, wood, tiles, pipes, valves and an engine is not 1 in a billion. Just because you do not believe that could happen, does not therefore mean it did not happen.

I did not use Santa as an "analogy" for the Holocaust. I cited it as a counterexample to demonstrate the absurdity of your interpretation of "argument from incredulity."

Calculating Santa's implied speed is very, very similar to calculating the implied speeds of the crematoriums or the outdoor pyres. Or calculating the wood requirements. You ASSUME that the latter story is possible/plausible without actually running the numbers. Fact it, there is no confirmed real world data supporting what is claimed. The Holocaust is a collection of unprecedented "world record" claims confirmed only by "witnesses."

Your opinion, or mine is not important. What is important is what is evidenced to have happened. You are clearly led by opinion and argument, as I keep on having to point out to you that you need evidence.

Your bias against "arguments," which is merely taking evidence and drawing conclusions from it, is totally bizarre.

You conflate personal opinion based on nothing with well-reasoned argument based on data.

[Nessie]

What does joshk246 present to back up his incredulity? The answer is his asserted opinion and more argument, rather than evidence.

Nessie, why are you maliciously focusing on my conclusion instead of debating me on the actual argument above it?

I point out that you need evidence. Argument is just opinion, and its use in that context is a logical fallacy.

My actual argument was the non existent weather tight wood storage facilities at any AR camp...

There is no evidence as to what the wood storage facilities consisted of. You cannot argue the facilities are non-existent, you need evidence, and there is none.

... and also the contradictory statements from 'witnesses'-ie no mention of anyone constantly tending the fires; but they were supposedly burning almost 24/7.

Weirnik;

https://web.archive.org/web/20220309084 ... iernik.htm

"All this made no impression whatsoever on the German murderers, who stood around watching as if they were checking a machine which was not working properly and whose production was inadequate.
Then, one day, an Oberscharfuhrer wearing an SS badge arrived at the camp and introduced a veritable inferno. He was about 45 years old, of medium height, with a perpetual smile on his face. His favorite word was "tadellos [perfect]" and that is how he got the by-name Tadellos. His face looked kind and did not show the depraved soul behind it. He got pure pleasure watching the corpses burn; the sight of the flames licking at the bodies was precious to him, and he would literally caress the scene with his eyes."

Gley;

http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org ... speak.html

"Then the unearthing and cremation of the corpses began. It lasted from November 1942 until March 1943. The cremation was conducted day and night without interruption. At first the burning took place at one site, and later on at two."

Why would you think that they lit the pyres and then went and did something else?

As for the non-existent loggings and your claims of "Polish sawmills"

It is not my claim, it comes from a Nazi who worked at various AR camps, Erwin Lambert;

http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org ... speak.html

"I went to Sobibor together with Lorenz Hackenholt, who was at that time in Treblinka. First of all, I went with Hackenholt to a sawmill near Warsaw. There Hackenholt ordered a big consignment of wood for reconstruction in Sobibor."

I use evidence, not my opinion or argument.

As for Treblinka, the 100 inmates of the forest unit would have cut (100 x 0.63 tons/day/man =) 63 tons of wood each day; to reach the required amount, it would have taken them (198,842.6 tons ÷ 63 tons/day=) 3,156 days; or more than eight and a half years, but they only had 122 days to do it.

A chart on "Wood Cutting for the Economic Forestry Year 1944" ("Holzeinschlag des Forstwirtschaftsjahres 1944") shows the situation as of January 31, 1944 for the Warsaw District. The amount of wood to be cut was 279,730 solid cubic meters (fm); the amount actually cut was 187,173fm. The graph regarding "Wood Transport of the wood cut 1943-1944", with reference to the same date, gives the amount of wood that had been taken away: it amounted to 90,929fm.

see Mattogno, The "Operation Reinhardt" Camps pg 285, 283.

Why are you assuming no wood was delivered? There is a lot that is not known about the working of the AR camps. You cannot just assume and declare that is what happened. That Mattogno cannot work out, to his satisfaction, how the pyres were fuelled by wood is not evidence to prove there were no mass pyres and all the witness lied. Mattogno has fallen for the logical fallacy of argument from incredulity. To prove there were no pyres, he needs evidence, such as a witness from the camp who denies that there were pyres, or a site survey that found no evidence of ash and cremated remains.

[Nessie]

I first posted on TSSF and very quickly started to point out the flaws in revisionist arguments. I did learn more about the logical fallacies that were being employed. What is wrong with self learning about a subject? You could do with some of that!

"What is wrong with self learning about a subject?" You tell me. You're the one who's arguing that.

When I and others explain to you where you have gone wrong, you show no sign of learning and you just repeat the same mistakes. Revisionists in general refuse to learn from their mistakes.

The mountaineers did what revisionists have failed to do. They went and gathered evidence. They found no climbing equipment above a certain point and the climb did not match the witness description. That is corroborating evidence to prove the climb did not take place. Revisionists have failed to produce evidence from the AR camps, or A-B Kremas, to disprove gassings. No witnesses, documents, anything. As I said above, when they theorise, they come up with contradictory alternative events, none of which can be evidenced to have taken place.

You say "same arguments everyone uses when they debunk something" but people who know what they are doing, such as the climbers, use evidence, not argument.

Where did you get this bizarre idea that revisionists aren't interested in evidence?

From all the times you claim you can argue what happened, rather than evidence.

We make use of every bit of information we are permitted to see.

You don't understand what evidence is. It's very broad.

"that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof."

Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

OK, so using witnesses who worked at the AR camps, records directly pertaining to the camps and their operation, any relevant contemporaneous documents such as transport records and any physical find from the camp site, prove what happened there.

I bet you cannot. Instead, you will produce either and existing revisionist hypothesis, or you might produce a new one. That is all revisionists have, theories as to what happened and an opinion there were no gassings. They cannot produce a contemporaneously chronologically evidenced history of what took place.

All you can do is assert I don't know what evidence is and then plagiarise something you found online.

The Santa comparison is a false analogy, another logical fallacy. Santa is undoubtedly physically impossible. Germans converting a room with gas tight doors, a ventilation system, some holes in the roof and a mesh insertion device are working well within what is physically impossible. Germans designing and building a gas chambers out of bricks, concrete, wood, tiles, pipes, valves and an engine is not 1 in a billion. Just because you do not believe that could happen, does not therefore mean it did not happen.

I did not use Santa as an "analogy" for the Holocaust. I cited it as a counterexample to demonstrate the absurdity of your interpretation of "argument from incredulity."

It is absurd to believe in Santa, it is not absurd to believe that Germans could design and construct gas chambers. Therefore, I am correct to interpret revisionist claims that mass gassing testimony is all absurd, as arguments from incredulity.

Calculating Santa's implied speed is very, very similar to calculating the implied speeds of the crematoriums or the outdoor pyres. Or calculating the wood requirements. You ASSUME that the latter story is possible/plausible without actually running the numbers. Fact it, there is no confirmed real world data supporting what is claimed. The Holocaust is a collection of unprecedented "world record" claims confirmed only by "witnesses."

Calculations of Santa's speed, along with the inability of reindeer to fly and carry such a volume of presents, do indeed form the basis for reasonable incredulity. I have made no assumption.

If I "run the figures" as to the mass gassing claims, I find them believable. That is because I understand witness evidence far better than any revisionist and know about flawed estimations, hyperbole, use of figures of speech etc. It is also because of the evidence that corroborates them. You are being very dishonest when you suggest the claims are only confirmed by witnesses.

When witnesses describe the amount of wood used to start the pyres, it does seem less than expected. However, the Nazis also talk about experimentation to make the pyres as efficient as possible and what they describe would function as a fire pit or BBQ functions, where the wood is separated from what is to be burnt by a metal grill. That allows air to be drawn in, the wood to burn to embers, which is the hottest form of wood fire, that would set a corpse on fire. The pyres found by the Americans when they liberated Ohrdruf camp, are very similar to what is described at the AR camps, including that they got so hot, the metal rails bent. Photo here;

https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/a ... ation-camp

That I find the witness descriptions believable, does not therefore mean the pyres happened. It is corroborating evidence, in particular the archaeological findings from the sites, that prove the witnesses told the truth.

Your opinion, or mine is not important. What is important is what is evidenced to have happened. You are clearly led by opinion and argument, as I keep on having to point out to you that you need evidence.

Your bias against "arguments," which is merely taking evidence and drawing conclusions from it, is totally bizarre.

You conflate personal opinion based on nothing with well-reasoned argument based on data.

Again, you are admitting that you rely on argument, since you cannot evidence what took place. Revisionist arguments are not well reasoned. They result in multiple different conclusions that are all contradicted by the evidence. They are arguments in the form of logical fallacies.

[joshk246]

"Then the unearthing and cremation of the corpses began. It lasted from November 1942 until March 1943. The cremation was conducted day and night without interruption. At first the burning took place at one site, and later on at two."

Nessie, you seriously cannot see the contradiction in that ‘witness’ statement? Rain, snow and wind would not allow the open air pyres to operate 24/7.

There is no evidence as to what the wood storage facilities consisted of. You cannot argue the facilities are non-existent, you need evidence, and there is none.

There is no evidence that the wood storage facilities ever existed either; no mention by the storytellers because the original theory was bodies burned on their own under a thin layer of wood and the fat from the bodies accelerated the fires (LOL).

"I went to Sobibor together with Lorenz Hackenholt, who was at that time in Treblinka. First of all, I went with Hackenholt to a sawmill near Warsaw. There Hackenholt ordered a big consignment of wood for reconstruction in Sobibor."

You’ve just provided a statement from a Nazi who’s describing wood to be used to construct ‘gas chambers’. This has no relevance to cremations.

Why are you assuming no wood was delivered?

Because… There is 0 documentary or witness evidence to show transports of wood to be used to pyres. No enigma decrypts providing information of mass wood deliverers being shipped/arriving at the camps.

That Mattogno cannot work out, to his satisfaction, how the pyres were fuelled by wood is not evidence to prove there were no mass pyres and all the witness lied. Mattogno has fallen for the logical fallacy of argument from incredulity.

Mattogno has used maths to back up his statements and real life examples to corroborate. You are purposefully ignoring that and that’s all I need to know about you.

[Archie]

Arguing with Nessie reminds me of this scene from Spinal Tap.