Misrepresentation (reply to Archie)

[Nessie]

Revisionists constantly misrepresent the historical position regarding evidence for the Holocaust. I am now active on twitter and the most common misrepresentation is the lie that there is no evidence for gassings, graves and cremations. I suspect many are just ignorant of the evidence and they are just repeating the lie. Here, misrepresentation is a bit less blatant, but it is still common and obvious. Some examples;

Archie, you claimed;

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=5544#p5544

I would say my restatements of your arguments are clearer than your original posts

That was just after you had said;

Here is how I would summarize his argument.

-Prufer and the Sonderkommandos say it was a gas chamber
-Therefore it was a gas chamber
-Therefore any arguments saying it wasn't a gas chamber are a priori wrong and don't even need to be addressed and those who attempt to make such arguments are guilty of the "argument from incredulity" fallacy.

That suggests one German and some others witness said there were a gas chambers and that is proof of a gas chambers. That grossly misrepresents the scale and volume of evidence, as shown in this link, to documentary, witness, forensic and circumstantial evidence to prove gas chambers;

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... ce-on.html

Normally, that level of eyewitness and other evidence would be accepted as proof. Revisionists need a way around that, so they grossly underreport how much evidence there is.

Archie then suggests it is wrong to argue there were no gas chambers, those arguments do not need to be addressed and that any argument is the fallacy of argument from incredulity. That is incorrect.

There is always going to be an argument over interpretation of evidence. An example of that, are the documents that refer to the construction of gas chambers, or gassing cellars, inside the Kremas. Gassing does not mean people were gassed. Some revisionists argue it means delousing, though others dispute that, due to the residue levels of HCN. Evidence, such as the documents about sending corpses being stored around the camp to the Kremas, do need to be addressed. Arguing that corpses being sent to the Kremas is evidence they were then stored at the Kremas, is not an argument from incredulity.

Another example.

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=5511#p5511

You are doing the whole "it happened; therefore, it was possible" thing. On this forum, we don't assume that it happened.

My response, which is self-explanatory;

I don't assume it happened. I look to see what is evidenced sufficiently to prove what happened.

Another example.

But you think doing math is a fallacy because that would be "trying to work out whether it could have happened" which you say is not allowed. Lol, that position is so ridiculous I can't even believe I'm having to explain this to you.

No where have I ever said that trying to work out how the cremations took place and so many corpses were cremated, is not allowed. Archie suggests he is quoting me, but what is inside the quotation marks is not my words from that thread and it is not what I claim. It is perfectly reasonable to try and work out how the Nazis managed to cremate so many corpses.

The issue is the revisionist claim that because they cannot work out the answer to their satisfaction, that is proof of no mass cremations of hundreds of thousands of corpses in only a few months. I cannot believe I have to explain that to you.

[TlsMS93]

Your problem is that you extrapolate what is really there, such as the existence of ashes in the Reinhardt camps, without sifting and determining that it is sufficient for the alleged number of victims in those camps, the same as trying to determine the existence of mass murder by finding less than half a human body as Caroline Sturdy Colls did. What there is are transports of Jews, whether they were killed or were alive somewhere else is irrelevant to you as long as you accept the extrapolations and disregard evidence of Western Jews in the East. You may think that it is insufficient but what we have most to doubt is the millions of people who were killed en masse on an industrial scale.

We have no evidence of gassing, neither you nor Hilberg, who refused to name a single person who was gassed at the Zundel trial.

In fact, French intellectuals, with the participation of Hilberg, called for an international colloquium to determine that the gas chambers existed and that Hitler ordered the extermination, in the end they did not even touch on the subject, only that there was no order for extermination by Hitler.

So this overwhelming evidence is nothing more than “criminal traces” as Pressac called it, but when confronted with other evidence it falls apart.

[Nessie]

Your problem is that you extrapolate what is really there, such as the existence of ashes in the Reinhardt camps, without sifting and determining that it is sufficient for the alleged number of victims in those camps, the same as trying to determine the existence of mass murder by finding less than half a human body as Caroline Sturdy Colls did.

Your problem is how often you misrepresent how I evidence. I get all sorts of accusations, without any examples. I have joined in with the grave volume calculation debates, and I am satisfied that the huge areas of disturbed ground, larger than any other mass grave site in history, found at the AR camps and Chelmno, would have taken hundreds of thousands of corpses.

What there is are transports of Jews, whether they were killed or were alive somewhere else is irrelevant to you as long as you accept the extrapolations and disregard evidence of Western Jews in the East. You may think that it is insufficient but what we have most to doubt is the millions of people who were killed en masse on an industrial scale.

There is no evidence of western Jews in the east, who passed through an AR camp. There is evidence western Jews, such as Germans, who did go east, to Riga, but they did not via an AR camp.

We have no evidence of gassing, neither you nor Hilberg, who refused to name a single person who was gassed at the Zundel trial.

That is just a lie, that there is no evidence of gassings. The name a Jew canard also works for name a western Jew who went via an AR camp to be resettled in the east.

In fact, French intellectuals, with the participation of Hilberg, called for an international colloquium to determine that the gas chambers existed and that Hitler ordered the extermination, in the end they did not even touch on the subject, only that there was no order for extermination by Hitler.

So this overwhelming evidence is nothing more than “criminal traces” as Pressac called it, but when confronted with other evidence it falls apart.

You are playing down the sheer volume and quality of evidence for mass murder, to deflect from the lack of evidence of mass resettlement.

[Stubble]

The post that Archie penned outlining and framing your argumentation was so incredibly concise and accurate that I looked at it with a bit of awe.

It being a boil down, a condensation, of many posts you have made, of course it doesn't broach everything you have ever said or your motivations for saying it, and that's not even part of the point.

It is basically the extent of your arguments. It is also demonstrable.

[Archie]

Well, I don't know how I'll ever recover from this.

Nessie, do you think that you represent revisionist views fairly and accurately? Perhaps in the spirit of magnanimity, you could show us how it's done and give us a solid, not straw-manned summary of the revisionist case. How about it? Lead by example.

[Nessie]

Well, I don't know how I'll ever recover from this.

Nessie, do you think that you represent revisionist views fairly and accurately? Perhaps in the spirit of magnanimity, you could show us how it's done and give us a solid, not straw-manned summary of the revisionist case. How about it? Lead by example.

You have just locked another thread for going off topic and now you want this thread to go off topic. I will stick to the topic and every time the level of evidence, or how historians investigate, is misrepresented, I will post it here and explain why it is a misrepresentation.

From your lack of response, I take it that you admit to misrepresentation when you said,

-Prufer and the Sonderkommandos say it was a gas chamber
-Therefore it was a gas chamber

That you have missed out a lot of evidence.

[Nessie]

The post that Archie penned outlining and framing your argumentation was so incredibly concise and accurate that I looked at it with a bit of awe.

It being a boil down, a condensation, of many posts you have made, of course it doesn't broach everything you have ever said or your motivations for saying it, and that's not even part of the point.

It is basically the extent of your arguments. It is also demonstrable.

Then demonstrate. Start with this,

-Prufer and the Sonderkommandos say it was a gas chamber
-Therefore it was a gas chamber

Demonstrate why naming one Nazi witness, when there are dozens, and only witness evidence, when there is documentary, physical, forensic and circumstantial evidence, as well as motive, opportunity and conduct after the crime, to prove gas chambers, is not a misrepresentation.

[Stubble]

The post that Archie penned outlining and framing your argumentation was so incredibly concise and accurate that I looked at it with a bit of awe.

It being a boil down, a condensation, of many posts you have made, of course it doesn't broach everything you have ever said or your motivations for saying it, and that's not even part of the point.

It is basically the extent of your arguments. It is also demonstrable.

Then demonstrate. Start with this,

-Prufer and the Sonderkommandos say it was a gas chamber
-Therefore it was a gas chamber

Demonstrate why naming one Nazi witness, when there are dozens, and only witness evidence, when there is documentary, physical, forensic and circumstantial evidence, as well as motive, opportunity and conduct after the crime, to prove gas chambers, is not a misrepresentation.

Don't have to, that's not the kicker buddy. Add more witnesses if you want, parse and edit the opening to your contentment, won't exactly change the outcome.

For the record, I believe Archie actually is quoting from you in that part, although I'm not sure. He could probably clear up that particular better than I.

The main thing to consider about the argumentation isn't it's contents specifically, but more the style or pattern. There is an assertion, there is an assumption, then there is a declaration. Just wash, rinse, repeat.

You assert 'evidence' (insert whatever). You assume the evidence is correct, because it obviously is true. You declare all argument a fallacy from incredulity.

'Just because you don't know how it happened' 'argument from incredulity' 'argument from incredulity' 'argument from incredulity'...

But, I actually have a degree and worked in this field doing this specific thing I'm talking about.

Just because you don't know how it happened' 'argument from incredulity' 'argument from incredulity' 'argument from incredulity'...

/shrug

[Nessie]

....

You assert 'evidence' (insert whatever). You assume the evidence is correct, because it obviously is true.

Misrepresentation. I do not assume, I corroborate evidence.

You declare all argument a fallacy from incredulity.

Misrepresentation. For example, when revisionists argue a speech about liquidating the Jews, means resettlement, that is not an argument from incredulity.

[Stubble]

None of what you just said makes air lighter than hydrogen cyanide gas, and yet, my argument that it is lighter than air is invalid, because it's proved to have happened and thus I argue from incredulity Nessie.

And you still think that's a true statement.

Because obviously it happened, and so obviously I'm wrong.

Now, take this logic to cremation. Pick an argument, let's go with the refractory, not the coal, ok, well, I'm obviously wrong, because it happened, so I argue from incredulity.

How many examples do I need to show you?

[Nessie]

None of what you just said makes air lighter than hydrogen cyanide gas, and yet, my argument that it is lighter than air is invalid, because it's proved to have happened and thus I argue from incredulity Nessie.

And you still think that's a true statement.

Because obviously it happened, and so obviously I'm wrong.

Yes, when gassings are evidenced and proven to have happened, your doubts around air being lighter than HCN, so how could have gassings happened, are wrong.

Now, take this logic to cremation. Pick an argument, let's go with the refractory, not the coal, ok, well, I'm obviously wrong, because it happened, so I argue from incredulity.

How many examples do I need to show you?

I see examples of argument from incredulity all of the time, from revisionists, as they cannot evidence what happened, which would be the normal way to prove no gassings.

[TlsMS93]

All abductees say it was an alien ship, so it is an alien ship. Unbelievable.

“It was true in my mind”

Herman Rosenblat

[Stubble]

Nessie, it's not just the fact that hydrogen cyanide gas is lighter than air now, is it. There's also the lack of hydrogen cyanide residue. None of it matters though, literally none of it. Because it happened, so any technical, and scientific, any rational scepticism is obviously not only wrong, but, wow logical fallacy, the argument from incredulity.

No Nessie, if something violates the physical law, or if something is claimed that is incongruent with the physical evidence, they are mistaken. I don't care how many people saw Martha riding on her broomstick, it never happened.

[Archie]

You have just locked another thread for going off topic and now you want this thread to go off topic. I will stick to the topic and every time the level of evidence, or how historians investigate, is misrepresented, I will post it here and explain why it is a misrepresentation.

The topic was misrepresentation/straw-manning, so I think it's fair to consider this from both sides, not just one. And to look into whether you're being hypocritical here.

Btw, I asked Nessie this before and this was his laughable response.

There are various summaries of the denier/revisionist case, that I and many others use. In its most simple form;

- there were no mass gassings

The slightly more detailed version of that, and the one I use the most, is the transit camp theory;

- the people sent on mass transports to the AR camps, or A-B, were not gassed and left those places to go elsewhere.

There is a variation to that of, which leaves many unanswered questions as to what happened;

- it is not certain there were mass transports to the AR camps, or A-B.

There are some deniers who suggest they do know what happened, such as claims the Kremas were used as delousing centres or for mass showering and that the AR camps were used as transit camps, hygiene stops or for property seizure.

If you combined that, you end up with the denier argument being, there are theories as to what happened, but we do know is that there were no mass gassings at the AR camps and A-B Kremas.

Nessie thinks this is a good summary of revisionist arguments.

[Nessie]

Nessie, it's not just the fact that hydrogen cyanide gas is lighter than air now, is it. There's also the lack of hydrogen cyanide residue. None of it matters though, literally none of it. Because it happened, so any technical, and scientific, any rational scepticism is obviously not only wrong, but, wow logical fallacy, the argument from incredulity.

No Nessie, if something violates the physical law, or if something is claimed that is incongruent with the physical evidence, they are mistaken. I don't care how many people saw Martha riding on her broomstick, it never happened.

If your opinion is that something violates the physical law, but there is evidence to prove that something happened, then your opinion is, logically, wrong. It does not matter how deeply held your opinion is, or how much you think you can back it with science, the evidence wins.

You, of course, misrepresent the logical fallacy, by equating it with something that is physically impossible, flying broomsticks. The Nazis working out how to gas people inside a converted mortuary, is physically possible. That it leaves less residue than expected, is not sufficient to make gassings impossible. There are a lot of things scientists cannot work out and are unexpected.