"Beliefs" aren't necessarily wrong (reply to Nessie)

[Nessie]

....

You are going to claim that because it is not just mere belief, but belief that is backed by study and calculations, that revisionists are justified in not believing. That assumes revisionist study and calculations are correct and justified.

The revisionists is a more sophisticated form of argument from incredulity, than mere belief, but it is still logically flawed, as it makes too many assumptions.

This post right here is the crux of Nessie's miscomprehension.

Revisionists are arguing for that conclusion. We are not assuming it. Our intention is to convince people that our conclusion is correct. If we were to just state it with zero support that wouldn't convince anyone.

What Nessie calls "a more sophisticated form of argument form incredulity" is really just normal argument, lol.

The one who assumes the conclusion all the time is Nessie.

You argue that mass gassings, huge mass graves containing hundreds of thousands of corpses and mass corpse cremations and pyres are technically impossible, based on your interpretation of the testimony, documents and remaining physical evidence and conclude, therefore there were no mass killings.

That is a logically flawed argument, that does not prove no mass killings. To prove no mass killings, you need evidence from witnesses, documents, physical items, archaeology etc.

[HansHill]

That is a logically flawed argument, that does not prove no mass killings. To prove no mass killings, you need evidence from witnesses, documents, physical items, archaeology etc.

No, its not.

Witnesses: You claim to have worked in law enforcement and have knowledge over witnesses and testimony. However if that were true you would understand that in trials, it happens all the time that one side of a case will lose despite having eyewitnesses, because those eyewitness' testimony is unsupported by stronger evidence on the other side, just like the holocaust.

Physical items: How are those Kula Columns coming along?

Archaeology: How is that absence of Prussian Blue and Introduction Holes coming along?

[Archie]

Here's a specific example which demonstrates why what Nessie says is foolish.

Here is a clip of David Cole talking about problems with the gas chambers.


Let's focus on one specific argument: The doors for the Mauthausen "gas chamber" can be opened from either side and do not lock. Is pointing out that this is not consistent with it being a gas chamber a fallacy? No, it isn't. It's a good point.

-A homicidal gas chamber requires either that the victims be restrained OR you need very strong doors that lock to keep everyone locked in. (If they can just open the door, obviously it wouldn't work.)
-This "gas chamber" does not lock
-Therefore this gas chamber could not have worked as described

This is a logically consistent argument. It isn't a fallacy. Again, Nessie doesn't know what he's talking about and calls everything a fallacy whether it applies or not.

If you want to counter this argument Cole has made, you need to address it. You can't say "he's wrong bc fallacy of incredulity." When you do that, you are the one committing the fallacy.

One possible counterargument (not a very good one) would be that the door did lock but the one that's there right now isn't original. Or you could change the story and say that all the prisoners were restrained. Or say that they were all sedated beforehand or something. Or they just didn't realize they could just open the door. "I don't know" is also an acceptable response. But you need to have some response. You can't say the argument is automatically wrong because you don't like the conclusion.

[Stubble]

There is also the argument that they were thrown into lakes and rivers of fire alive. That is evidenced after all, and by a Nobel Prize Winner no less.

Sure, he was talking about another camp, but, if it was policy, it would have extended to others.

[Nessie]

That is a logically flawed argument, that does not prove no mass killings. To prove no mass killings, you need evidence from witnesses, documents, physical items, archaeology etc.

No, its not.

Yes, it is.

Witnesses: You claim to have worked in law enforcement and have knowledge over witnesses and testimony. However if that were true you would understand that in trials, it happens all the time that one side of a case will lose despite having eyewitnesses, because those eyewitness' testimony is unsupported by stronger evidence on the other side, just like the holocaust.

You have no witnesses at all.

Physical items: How are those Kula Columns coming along?

They are evidenced by witnesses and documents, since the Nazis destroyed much of the physical evidence, an act that can be reasonably inferred as covering up a crime.

Archaeology: How is that absence of Prussian Blue and Introduction Holes coming along?

You mean forensic evidence and it has been explained by various chemists. Just because the residues are lower than you expect, does not therefore mean no gassings.

[Stubble]

That is a logically flawed argument, that does not prove no mass killings. To prove no mass killings, you need evidence from witnesses, documents, physical items, archaeology etc.

No, its not.

Yes, it is.

I can't stop laughing

[Nessie]

Here's a specific example which demonstrates why what Nessie says is foolish.

Let's focus on one specific argument: The doors for the Mauthausen "gas chamber" can be opened from either side and do not lock. Is pointing out that this is not consistent with it being a gas chamber a fallacy? No, it isn't. It's a good point.

-A homicidal gas chamber requires either that the victims be restrained OR you need very strong doors that lock to keep everyone locked in. (If they can just open the door, obviously it wouldn't work.)
-This "gas chamber" does not lock
-Therefore this gas chamber could not have worked as described

This is a logically consistent argument. It isn't a fallacy. Again, Nessie doesn't know what he's talking about and calls everything a fallacy whether it applies or not.

If you want to counter this argument Cole has made, you need to address it. You can't say "he's wrong bc fallacy of incredulity." When you do that, you are the one committing the fallacy.

One possible counterargument (not a very good one) would be that the door did lock but the one that's there right now isn't original. Or you could change the story and say that all the prisoners were restrained. Or say that they were all sedated beforehand or something. Or they just didn't realize they could just open the door. "I don't know" is also an acceptable response. But you need to have some response. You can't say the argument is automatically wrong because you don't like the conclusion.

A gas chamber with a door that opens inwards and does not lock, does not make sense. But, since deniers on X get all excited about the wooden door that used to lead into a washroom, that now appears to lead into the gas chambers at Krema I, has there been a mistake?

These photos show the Mauthausen gas chamber door, but they are different doors. This door does open inwards;



That is a different door to;



That door is into this room, the tiles on the floor are the same and it opens outwards and can be secured;



The photos are from the same source;

https://remember.org/camps/mauthausen/mau-gas02
https://remember.org/camps/mauthausen/mau-gas01

Have revisionists again got confused about doors, because of a poorly informed source?

[HansHill]

No, its not.

Yes, it is.

I can't stop laughing

Another one for the Nessie Hall Of Fame

[Stubble]

Here's a specific example which demonstrates why what Nessie says is foolish.

Let's focus on one specific argument: The doors for the Mauthausen "gas chamber" can be opened from either side and do not lock. Is pointing out that this is not consistent with it being a gas chamber a fallacy? No, it isn't. It's a good point.

-A homicidal gas chamber requires either that the victims be restrained OR you need very strong doors that lock to keep everyone locked in. (If they can just open the door, obviously it wouldn't work.)
-This "gas chamber" does not lock
-Therefore this gas chamber could not have worked as described

This is a logically consistent argument. It isn't a fallacy. Again, Nessie doesn't know what he's talking about and calls everything a fallacy whether it applies or not.

If you want to counter this argument Cole has made, you need to address it. You can't say "he's wrong bc fallacy of incredulity." When you do that, you are the one committing the fallacy.

One possible counterargument (not a very good one) would be that the door did lock but the one that's there right now isn't original. Or you could change the story and say that all the prisoners were restrained. Or say that they were all sedated beforehand or something. Or they just didn't realize they could just open the door. "I don't know" is also an acceptable response. But you need to have some response. You can't say the argument is automatically wrong because you don't like the conclusion.

A gas chamber with a door that opens inwards and does not lock, does not make sense. But, since deniers on X get all excited about the wooden door that used to lead into a washroom, that now appears to lead into the gas chambers at Krema I, has there been a mistake?

These photos show the Mauthausen gas chamber door, but they are different doors. This door does open inwards;



That is a different door to;



That door is into this room, the tiles on the floor are the same and it opens outwards and can be secured;



The photos are from the same source;

https://remember.org/camps/mauthausen/mau-gas02
https://remember.org/camps/mauthausen/mau-gas01

Have revisionists again got confused about doors, because of a poorly informed source?

Nessie, that door can be opened from the inside and is not secured in any meaningful way. Furthermore, I'm reasonably sure that the claim of that room being a homicidal gas chamber was abandoned long ago.

If I recall correctly, at Mauthausen, again, if I recall correctly, the 'shower room' that was a 'death chamber' had a steel grate for a floor and the condemned were killed with fire from the floor that simultaneously cremated the remains.

Let me see if I can find the original source.

[Archie]

A gas chamber with a door that opens inwards and does not lock, does not make sense. But, since deniers on X get all excited about the wooden door that used to lead into a washroom, that now appears to lead into the gas chambers at Krema I, has there been a mistake?

This argument of Cole's:

-The door does not lock and that doesn't make sense for a gas chamber

You seem to imply here that this is NOT an argument from incredulity. Can you articulate for us why this would not count as a fallacy (by your usual standards) when it is indistinguishable from most other revisionist arguments that you do label fallacies?

"Just because Cole can't work out how the door worked doesn't mean it didn't. Cole is saying that because he doesn't believe the door could work that therefore gassings didn't happen."

---

FYI there are TWO doors in the Mauthausen shower room. You can see this clearly in this photo. BOTH doors would need to lock from the outside in order for it to work as a gas chamber.

That door is into this room, the tiles on the floor are the same and it opens outwards and can be secured;

Citation needed. What is your basis for the claim that both doors lock from the outside? Cole was there on site and he says it doesn't lock. And he shows this on the film.

[Archie]

Nessie, that door can be opened from the inside and is not secured in any meaningful way. Furthermore, I'm reasonably sure that the claim of that room being a homicidal gas chamber was abandoned long ago.

If I recall correctly, at Mauthausen, again, if I recall correctly, the 'shower room' that was a 'death chamber' had a steel grate for a floor and the condemned were killed with fire from the floor that simultaneously cremated the remains.

Let me see if I can find the original source.

FYI, the mainstream officially still believes that the Mauthausen gas chamber was real and that it was used. But the numbers claimed are pretty small, i.e., it's not one of the "extermination" camps.

[Stubble]

Nessie, that door can be opened from the inside and is not secured in any meaningful way. Furthermore, I'm reasonably sure that the claim of that room being a homicidal gas chamber was abandoned long ago.

If I recall correctly, at Mauthausen, again, if I recall correctly, the 'shower room' that was a 'death chamber' had a steel grate for a floor and the condemned were killed with fire from the floor that simultaneously cremated the remains.

Let me see if I can find the original source.

FYI, the mainstream officially still believes that the Mauthausen gas chamber was real and that it was used. But the numbers claimed are pretty small, i.e., it's not one of the "extermination" camps.

Well, they are both stupid, and wrong.

I'm having trouble finding the 'there was a metal grate for a floor, when the doors were closed, flames leapt up, killing the people in the death chamber, then they were cremated before the doors were opened again' bit of lore for Mauthausen. You don't by chance know where this comes from do you?

At some point I guess I am going to have to collate and organize a 'stupid crazy bullshit from the holocaust' folder.

[Nessie]

A gas chamber with a door that opens inwards and does not lock, does not make sense. But, since deniers on X get all excited about the wooden door that used to lead into a washroom, that now appears to lead into the gas chambers at Krema I, has there been a mistake?

This argument of Cole's:

-The door does not lock and that doesn't make sense for a gas chamber

You seem to imply here that this is NOT an argument from incredulity. Can you articulate for us why this would not count as a fallacy (by your usual standards) when it is indistinguishable from most other revisionist arguments that you do label fallacies?

"Just because Cole can't work out how the door worked doesn't mean it didn't. Cole is saying that because he doesn't believe the door could work that therefore gassings didn't happen."

---

The argument from incredulity stands or fails on what the arguer is being incredulous about. At opposite ends, it not a logical fail to be incredulous about something that is obviously and proven to be physically impossible. That is why revisionist use of witches, witchcraft and flying on broomsticks, is a false analogy. Those acts are definitely not physically impossible. The opposite is to be incredulous of something that is clearly physically possible, such as Germans designing and building gas chambers. It is not disputed they could design and build functioning gas chambers to delousing clothing, but revisionist then dispute their design and builds for homicidal gas chambers.

But this is not a black or white, possible, impossible situation. There are many degrees in between, whereby it becomes increasingly harder, or easier, to determine how something was physically possible to do. A gas chamber with a door that cannot be secured to prevent escape and a door that opens inwards, does not mean it cannot be used to gas people, but it is clearly not practical and it is odd that such a room would be used.

FYI there are TWO doors in the Mauthausen shower room. You can see this clearly in this photo. BOTH doors would need to lock from the outside in order for it to work as a gas chamber.

That door is into this room, the tiles on the floor are the same and it opens outwards and can be secured;

Citation needed. What is your basis for the claim that both doors lock from the outside? Cole was there on site and he says it doesn't lock. And he shows this on the film.

The door photos show how such doors are secured. The long lever on the outside pivots a small lever on the inside so it latches on the door frame. Someone on the inside cannot get enough purchase on the small lever to twist it and open the door.

The gas chamber has the lighter tiled floor. The door opens outwards, not into the gas chamber. The small levers are clearly visible on the inside, gas chamber side.



This is the other side, the outside of the door, and it shows the long levers.



However, ultimately, we can argue back and forth has to the possibility of using that room for gassings, but neither of us can use our argument to prove or disprove gassings. Like Krema I, what we see now is not how it was when it was in use and it is evidence of use that proves what happened.

https://www.deportati.it/static/upl/ga/gas-maida.pdf

"On 29 April, the equipment in the gas chamber was dismantled and the area disguised as a bathroom.29
The prisoners forced to “work” in the crematorium and the gas chamber were shot, but a few managed to hide
and so save themselves. As Terenzio Magliano remembers: “The gas chamber was a very ordinary room,
without windows, with a sealed door. When I saw it, the Germans had taken away equipment and materials,
so as not to leave any trace of their criminal behaviour, but you could still see perfectly well where the
cylinders had been kept and where the pipe-work came out."

[HansHill]

The opposite is to be incredulous of something that is clearly physically possible, such as Germans designing and building gas chambers. It is not disputed they could design and build functioning gas chambers to delousing clothing, but revisionist then dispute their design and builds for homicidal gas chambers.

We don't say that they couldn't. We say that they didn't, and explain why.

[fireofice]

At opposite ends, it not a logical fail to be incredulous about something that is obviously and proven to be physically impossible. That is why revisionist use of witches, witchcraft and flying on broomsticks, is a false analogy. Those acts are definitely not physically impossible.

How do you know? Just because you cannot work out how witches, witchcraft, and flying on broomsticks works doesn't mean it didn't happen. This is an argument from incredulity fallacy.

Btw, here are some good sources for Nessie and anyone else obsessed with "fallacies" to look into:







https://maartenboudry.be/2017/06/the-fa ... o-get.html

https://benthams.substack.com/p/two-fal ... that-arent