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

[fireofice]

Nessie is a hypocrite. He accuses everyone opposed to his position who uses evidence of engaging in the "argument from incredulity fallacy" because the evidence is opposed to his conclusion but then says we must believe all witnesses that confirm his view and if we don't, then we're being unreasonable because he can't understand how the witnesses can be lying or wrong. Well Nessie, that is also an "argument from incredulity fallacy". Just because you don't understand how witnesses can lie or be wrong doesn't mean they aren't lying or wrong.

[Stubble]

Nessie just thinks the orthodox holocaust narrative is possible because it happened, without realizing that people actually saw Martha flying.

It's not hypocritical, he's just incredulous about it.

The laws of thermodynamics and physics are unimportant when you have witnesses.

Unironically, Nessie fails to see the parallel with witch trails.

[Nessie]

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.

Your explanation why is logically flawed. Just because you cannot explain how something is possible, does not therefore mean it is impossible.

[Nessie]

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.

...

The correct use of the argument from incredulity rests on the evidence. There is no evidence that witches and flying broomsticks are physically possible, indeed, there is evidence to the contrary, they are not possible. Therefore, incredulity is logical.

HansHill just said "We don't say that they couldn't. We say that they didn't, and explain why.". He is admitting the Nazis could build gas chambers, and since there is evidence they did and there is no evidence they built something else inside the AR camps and Kremas, it is logical to believe there were gas chambers and illogical to argue incredulity, there were none.

[Nessie]

Nessie is a hypocrite. He accuses everyone opposed to his position who uses evidence of engaging in the "argument from incredulity fallacy" because the evidence is opposed to his conclusion but then says we must believe all witnesses that confirm his view and if we don't, then we're being unreasonable because he can't understand how the witnesses can be lying or wrong. Well Nessie, that is also an "argument from incredulity fallacy". Just because you don't understand how witnesses can lie or be wrong doesn't mean they aren't lying or wrong.

I understand witness evidence better than you. I am far more accurate than any revisionist in identifying eyewitness evidence over hearsay and rumour and how truthful and accurate a witness is. Revisionists obsess about credibility, without taking into account that someone can be credible and a total liar.

You suggest there is evidence that opposes my conclusion, but you do not say what that evidence is. What evidence is there that the Kremas and AR camps had a different process to gassings and no gas chambers?

[Nessie]

Nessie just thinks the orthodox holocaust narrative is possible because it happened,

Wrong. I believe gassings happened, because they are evidenced to have happened.

.... without realizing that people actually saw Martha flying.

It's not hypocritical, he's just incredulous about it.

The laws of thermodynamics and physics are unimportant when you have witnesses.

Unironically, Nessie fails to see the parallel with witch trails.

Wirchcraft and flying on brooms is proven to be physically impossible. Nazis building gas chambers, mass pyres and fast cremation ovens is not.

[fireofice]

You suggest there is evidence that opposes my conclusion, but you do not say what that evidence is. What evidence is there that the Kremas and AR camps had a different process to gassings and no gas chambers?

The chemical, cremation fuel and times, photos, ect. Your main response is that it's an argument from incredulity to bring that up. If you are now going to make arguments about as to why the evidence we bring up is not good, GREAT! This is progress at least. Lets keep it there and not say that us bringing up evidence is an "argument from incredulity" or whatever.

Wirchcraft and flying on brooms is proven to be physically impossible. Nazis building gas chambers, mass pyres and fast cremation ovens is not.

The argument revisionists make is that given the chemical evidence in the walls and the known limits of fuel, it is extremely unlikely that it happened. The same applies to witches and magic. We can't actually rule out that witches and magic aren't real. Do we know everything about reality? If not, then we can't say with 100% certainty that these things aren't real either. It's just very unlikely to be a good explanation for things that happen. The same applies when arguing about the evidence of the holocaust.

[Nessie]

You suggest there is evidence that opposes my conclusion, but you do not say what that evidence is. What evidence is there that the Kremas and AR camps had a different process to gassings and no gas chambers?

The chemical, cremation fuel and times, photos, ect. Your main response is that it's an argument from incredulity to bring that up. If you are now going to make arguments about as to why the evidence we bring up is not good, GREAT! This is progress at least. Lets keep it there and not say that us bringing up evidence is an "argument from incredulity" or whatever.

By evidence, I mean witnesses, documents, physical remains, archaeology, circumstances, the type of evidence that proves a historical event, or a crime, took place. Not the chemistry and physics you used to support your argument from incredulity.

For example, I prove homicidal gas chambers with witnesses who saw them in action, designed them and worked there, along with documents recording their construction. Revisionists try to argue they could not have been used as gas chambers, because of the chemistry that shows a lower level of HCN residue that expected.

You counter evidence with an argument that is logically flawed.

Wirchcraft and flying on brooms is proven to be physically impossible. Nazis building gas chambers, mass pyres and fast cremation ovens is not.

The argument revisionists make is that given the chemical evidence in the walls and the known limits of fuel, it is extremely unlikely that it happened. The same applies to witches and magic. We can't actually rule out that witches and magic aren't real. Do we know everything about reality? If not, then we can't say with 100% certainty that these things aren't real either. It's just very unlikely to be a good explanation for things that happen. The same applies when arguing about the evidence of the holocaust.

We can rule out casting spells and flying on brooms. They cannot happen. There is ample evidence to prove that. We cannot rule out gassings, because the residue in the walls is lower than in the delousing chambers and lower than expected.

[Stubble]

Nessie, do you believe the blood libel?

There are witnesses, there is evidence, no physical laws were violated, etc. It was documented historical fact. Now, it's an antisemitic canard.

Why would the perpetrators have confessed if they didn't do it? Did the witnesses all lie? All of them? Hell, there were even bodies.

[Archie]

Nessie,

You say that the Holocaust is "evidenced." Ok, great. The very purpose of this forum is to discuss and evaluate that evidence. The problem with you is that you refuse to do this. You have a handful of jokers that you try to play every single hand while everyone else is trying to play a real game. It's gotten old.

Nessie: "There is overwhelming evidence for the Holocaust"
Revisionists: "Here's why that evidence is weak"
Nessie: "You aren't allowed to doubt or question the evidence. Incredulity fallacy."

"Incredulity" is but one of these jokers of yours. You have several others you use to excuse any and all witness errors. You now have nearly 1,000 posts with most being mere repetitions of these all-purpose generalities. Only rarely do you bring much of substance to any of the discussions. Do better.

[borjastick]

Do better.

Here's Mrs Nessie's school report from when she was 9 years of age.

Nessie is a bright if difficult young girl. She talks a lot and is most assertive but often, well maybe always, without any substance to what she says. She finds normal interaction with her class mates difficult and is often rude and dismissive yet cannot explain her reasons. I would suggest some therapy and perhaps a psychological assessment.

[Archie]

Nessie, do you believe the blood libel?

There are witnesses, there is evidence, no physical laws were violated, etc. It was documented historical fact. Now, it's an antisemitic canard.

Why would the perpetrators have confessed if they didn't do it? Did the witnesses all lie? All of them? Hell, there were even bodies.

And in most of the cases, no one can prove "what really happened" instead. He says revisionists must do this with the Holocaust.

I have actually asked him this exact question before. He will say bringing this up is a fallacy ("false analogy"). Any time you produce an example where Nessie would be forced to contradict or disregard his stated principles he says it's a "false analogy." He is of course wrong because if your "principles" are applied inconsistently to different situations then they aren't really principles (which is the whole point).

[Nessie]

Nessie, do you believe the blood libel?

There are witnesses, there is evidence, no physical laws were violated, etc. It was documented historical fact. Now, it's an antisemitic canard.

Why would the perpetrators have confessed if they didn't do it? Did the witnesses all lie? All of them? Hell, there were even bodies.

A very quick search of what the blood libel is, and most sources describe it as fake, an anti-Semitic trope. It looks like something similar to the witchcraft accusations made against women.

[Nessie]

Nessie,

You say that the Holocaust is "evidenced." Ok, great. The very purpose of this forum is to discuss and evaluate that evidence. The problem with you is that you refuse to do this.

That is not true. I spend most of my time explaining how to correctly evaluate evidence and giving you examples.

You have a handful of jokers that you try to play every single hand while everyone else is trying to play a real game. It's gotten old.

That repetition is caused by you making the same mistakes again and again. I show you how to evaluate the evidence and you ignore me and plough on regardless.

Nessie: "There is overwhelming evidence for the Holocaust"
Revisionists: "Here's why that evidence is weak"
Nessie: "You aren't allowed to doubt or question the evidence. Incredulity fallacy."

Misrepresentation. You ARE allowed to doubt or question the evidence. The issue is HOW you doubt or question the evidence. For example, you doubt and question witnesses describing how many people fitted inside a gas chambers. That is fine. I also doubt and question some of the witness estimations. We ARE allowed to doubt and question their estimations.

The problem is that you incorrectly state that a witness who clearly makes an incorrect claim about how many people fitted is a liar and cannot be trusted. I point to evidence that people are poor at estimating numbers and it is more likely they just overestimated how many people fitted. HOW you go about assessing the witness evidence is wrong, as it is contrary to studies about what is normal witness, memory, estimation and recall failures.

"Incredulity" is but one of these jokers of yours. You have several others you use to excuse any and all witness errors. You now have nearly 1,000 posts with most being mere repetitions of these all-purpose generalities. Only rarely do you bring much of substance to any of the discussions. Do better.

I am able, with links to experiments and studies, to explain many of the witness errors. I also often point to revisionist mistakes over eyewitness and hearsay evidence. It is you who needs to do better and be better and more accurate at assessing evidence.

[Nessie]

Nessie, do you believe the blood libel?

There are witnesses, there is evidence, no physical laws were violated, etc. It was documented historical fact. Now, it's an antisemitic canard.

Why would the perpetrators have confessed if they didn't do it? Did the witnesses all lie? All of them? Hell, there were even bodies.

And in most of the cases, no one can prove "what really happened" instead. He says revisionists must do this with the Holocaust.

I have actually asked him this exact question before. He will say bringing this up is a fallacy ("false analogy"). Any time you produce an example where Nessie would be forced to contradict or disregard his stated principles he says it's a "false analogy." He is of course wrong because if your "principles" are applied inconsistently to different situations then they aren't really principles (which is the whole point).

Two events can both be evidenced by witnesses and documents, with no physical laws violated and one claim is false and the other is true. It all depends on the quality of the evidence.