Falsification

[Callafangers]

We have now moved from in principle, to in practice.

Popper's falsification principle is meant as something of a preliminary filter to ensure a claim or prediction is even meaningful, scientific, or legitimate to begin with. For a claim or prediction to be conceivably falsifiable is sufficient to admit the claim as scientific/testable on a theoretical basis. However, the principle necessarily extends to how and whether a claim is scientific/testable in practice, for the same reasoning Popper applies to the principle on its theoretical basis: exposure to risk of refutation. Without this, the claim is parked as a theoretical possibility but cannot advance -- it is an illegitimate claim.

[Nessie]

We have now moved from in principle, to in practice.

Popper's falsification principle is meant as something of a preliminary filter to ensure a claim or prediction is even meaningful, scientific, or legitimate to begin with. For a claim or prediction to be conceivably falsifiable is sufficient to admit the claim as scientific/testable on a theoretical basis. However, the principle necessarily extends to how and whether a claim is scientific/testable in practice, for the same reasoning Popper applies to the principle on its theoretical basis: exposure to risk of refutation. Without this, the claim is parked as a theoretical possibility but cannot advance -- it is an illegitimate claim.

On a theoretical, in principle and practical level, the 1945 and 2011 site examinations were conducted in a such a way, that if no mass graves had even been dug, the examinations would have established that. You claim that the 1945 survey did indeed find no such evidence. Therefore, on all levels, Popper's principle applies.

[Callafangers]

On a theoretical, in principle and practical level, the 1945 and 2011 site examinations were conducted in a such a way, that if no mass graves had even been dug, the examinations would have established that. You claim that the 1945 survey did indeed find no such evidence. Therefore, on all levels, Popper's principle applies.

The claim(s) required of the 'Holocaust' narrative are not exclusively of whether 'mass graves had been dug'. They are more specific than that. Moreover, the examinations you mention identified an overwhelming lack of corpses (1945) or meaningless 'disturbances' (2011).

And yes, to the extent that the claim, 'there are hundreds of thousands of corpses underneath Treblinka' was ever scientific/falsifiable, the testing thus far has shown it indeed as false.

Once again, Popper's principle doesn't tell you whether a claim is true or false. It tells you whether it is a legitimate claim (risk-exposed) to begin with. The testing still has to happen, to determine what's true or not.

[Nessie]

On a theoretical, in principle and practical level, the 1945 and 2011 site examinations were conducted in a such a way, that if no mass graves had even been dug, the examinations would have established that. You claim that the 1945 survey did indeed find no such evidence. Therefore, on all levels, Popper's principle applies.

The claim(s) required of the 'Holocaust' narrative are not exclusively of whether 'mass graves had been dug'. They are more specific than that. Moreover, the examinations you mention identified an overwhelming lack of corpses (1945) or meaningless 'disturbances' (2011).

And yes, to the extent that the claim, 'there are hundreds of thousands of corpses underneath Treblinka' was ever scientific/falsifiable, the testing thus far has shown it indeed as false.

But previously you said;

Any claim or prediction of the 'Holocaust' can be subjected to Popper's falsification principle. And almost all such claims fail the test. Even though some may be theoretically falsifiable (e.g. that there are a million Jews underneath Treblinka, which could be tested via excavation/archaeology), these are not falsifiable in-practice due to anti-denial laws and policies.

You have gone from the mass graves are not falsifiable in practice to the testing has shown it indeed as false. Which one is it?

Once again, Popper's principle doesn't tell you whether a claim is true or false. It tells you whether it is a legitimate claim (risk-exposed) to begin with. The testing still has to happen, to determine what's true or not.

Now you flip to the testing that you claimed has shown mass graves to be indeed false, has not been done! Sorry, but you are all over the place. Make your mind up. Maybe this discussion should have been in the goalposts thread, the way you move them about so much. You are doing that because you are reluctant to agree with me, that mass graves do pass Popper's principle of falsifiability.

In principle, claims about mass graves at the AR camps, pass Popper's principle, because there is a way to determine if mass graves were ever dug, by excavations and geophysics. Those methods can falsify a claim of mass graves, by finding ground that has never been dug into. You cannot deny that, as it passes the test of being something scientifically falsifiable. Archaeologists know if they are the first people to dig into ground, or if it has been dug before. Geophysical testing such as GPR is specifically designed to find disturbed ground and buried items. If excavations and geophysics find no disturbed ground and no buried remains, a claim about a mass grave has been falsified.

In practice, when disturbed ground is found, the next step is to determine how big they were and what was buried in them. We will never agree on whether the disturbed ground at the AR camps is big enough and enough human remains have been found to prove mass graves. The Nazis did a very good job of destroying evidence, making body counts impossible. You will forever deny their existence and ignore the fact that I have other evidence to prove their existence, from eyewitnesses, documentary and circumstantial evidence.

I would finish off by repeating my point that there is nothing about the Holocaust, that is not scientifically or otherwise evidentially falsifiable.

[HansHill]

I would finish off by repeating my point that there is nothing about the Holocaust, that is not scientifically or otherwise evidentially falsifiable.

You are so unbelievably full of sh*t, its incredible that you are still allowed to pander your slop on this forum.

Here you are strutting your stuff that you are Mister Falsifiable, Mr Science and Rationality himself in the flesh, adhering perfectly to the laws of science, rationality, and debate. Yet when you hit a deadend such as coming up empty handed on the Prussian Blue question, you immediately pivot to "B-b-b-but maybe the walls were blue". You made a whole thread about this slop:

viewtopic.php?p=13047#p13047

You cannot on the one hand say you consider everything falsifiable, then when you hit a dead-end, prop your claims up externally with speculation, supposition, and slop just to maintain your conclusion. The fact you don't understand this is hilarious for everyone watching and reading.

[Nessie]

I would finish off by repeating my point that there is nothing about the Holocaust, that is not scientifically or otherwise evidentially falsifiable.

You are so unbelievably full of sh*t, its incredible that you are still allowed to pander your slop on this forum.

Here you are strutting your stuff that you are Mister Falsifiable, Mr Science and Rationality himself in the flesh, adhering perfectly to the laws of science, rationality, and debate. Yet when you hit a deadend such as coming up empty handed on the Prussian Blue question, you immediately pivot to "B-b-b-but maybe the walls were blue". You made a whole thread about this slop:

viewtopic.php?p=13047#p13047

You cannot on the one hand say you consider everything falsifiable, then when you hit a dead-end, prop your claims up externally with speculation, supposition, and slop just to maintain your conclusion. The fact you don't understand this is hilarious for everyone watching and reading.

There is a debate over whether the "Prussian Blue question" falsifies their use as gas chambers. Obviously you think it does, others disagree, for various reasons debated in other threads. That disagreement means gas chambers cannot be definitively falsified by the absence of PB. The absence of PB is not as reliable a test as other tests, such as GPR and excavations. Those two methods are very reliable at determining if the ground has been disturbed and something has been buried.

The reason why you are so reliant on PB to try to falsify the use of gas chambers, is because you lack the type of evidence that would falsify their use, such as corroborating Krema workers who state they saw no gas chambers and the Leichenkellers were used for another purpose.

[Archie]

I remember when Nessie and bombsaway were arguing that the fraudulent Soviet investigation of Katyn actually supported the Holocaust because, well, since they got caught in that instance, that just proves that fraud is impossible to get away with!

Nessie's various rules of thumb he uses for analyzing evidence are all rigged toward accepting the Holocaust. Witness statements can have any sort of errors and contradictions but it's okay because that's "normal." Statements that are directly refuted by hard evidence are contorted via mental gymnastics to be close enough.

For an especially shameless example of this, see here:
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=69

[bombsaway]

I remember when Nessie and bombsaway were arguing that the fraudulent Soviet investigation of Katyn actually supported the Holocaust because, well, since they got caught in that instance, that just proves that fraud is impossible to get away with!

I didn't say the Katyn "investigation" itself supported, I said their failure to cover up / purge internal documents / suppress witnesses shows that they wouldn't be able to successfully do that concerning an even 10,000 x larger.

[Nessie]

I remember when Nessie and bombsaway were arguing that the fraudulent Soviet investigation of Katyn actually supported the Holocaust because, well, since they got caught in that instance, that just proves that fraud is impossible to get away with!

A typical misrepresentation. The argument is that since just one massacre could not be long term hoaxed by the Soviets, it seems highly unlikely they, or anyone else, could have long term hoaxed the far larger Holocaust.

Nessie's various rules of thumb he uses for analyzing evidence are all rigged toward accepting the Holocaust. Witness statements can have any sort of errors and contradictions but it's okay because that's "normal."

Another misrepresentation. Witnesses whose errors or contradictions lead to evidence they have lied, or they are not corroborated in the claim, have those claims dismissed. But they do not necessarily have everything they say dismissed, which is what you would want to do. For example, a witness who states a far larger than is possible, number of people fitted inside a gas chamber. Otherwise, where the error or contradiction can be explained, such as the witness overestimated how many people fitted, as experiments prove we are poor at such estimations, it is normal.

Statements that are directly refuted by hard evidence are contorted via mental gymnastics to be close enough.

For an especially shameless example of this, see here:
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=69

Do some research into how good people are at remembering dates and when events took place. You will learn something. I know you will not bother, as you do not want to have to accept that the vast majority of witness claims that you want to dismiss as lies or otherwise disbelieve them, are explainable and "normal".