Critiquing evidence is not a fallacy.

[Keen]

original mass graves have been identified as having little cremated remains in them.

There's the mentally ill HC cult member again spewing her "magically disappearing jew" theory again.

These are the "original" - "huge mass graves" of Treblinka, alleged to contain 6.753 million pounds of human remains in various form, along with over 29 million teeth:



Not one has ever proven to exist.

NOT ONE.

Unless you count this:



Nor have any other "huge mass graves" ever been proven to exist within the boundy of the camp.

Nessie,

Is it - True. - or - False. - that; Non-nefarious diggings for such things as garbage pits, cellars, wells, latrines, septic pits, etc. - were dug at Treblinka II - ??

Nesserto's answer:

True

Nessie,

Of the 15 alleged Treblinka II graves / cremation pits in question - the one that you can conclusively prove currently contains the most human remains is number: _?_.

Nessie's answer:

I don't know.

Nesserto:

Geophysics scientifically and conclusively proves that there are pits and that they exist. But it does not prove that those pits contain human remains.

CSC:

Without intrusive activity it is not possible to conclusively determine the nature of these pits.

No graves, mass or otherwise, have ever been proven to eixist within the boundary of Treblinka II that contained cremated remains.

NOT ONE.

[Nessie]

An on topic response from Archie would be appreciated. Will he evidence his claim that I think the critiquing of evidence is fallacious? Or will he admit he is wrong?

You've picked up a few names of fallacies, and, ironically, it has completely fried your brain and rendered you incapable of reasoned debate. Anyone who has read your drivel on the forums over the years knows that you see "arguments from incredulity" lurking behind every bush. I am not going to waste my time trawling through your post history to document this. And I'm not going to explain to you yet again why your are wrong about this since I have been explaining it to you for probably five years and if you haven't understood by now you never will.

If you want to participate on the Debate board, you need to bring with SPECIFICS. You need to address the points that are brought up. Saying "that's incredulity" doesn't address anything and is not an acceptable rebuttal. Over and over, you have cluttered up threads on topics like Prussian blue or ventilation that you know nothing about. In essence, you claim that you don't need to address specifics because the Holocaust is "evidenced" and you think it's a fallacy to question that "the evidence."

Ironically, you fail to provide any evidence to prove that is the argument I have been making. You don't because you can't because, yet again, you misrepresent my argument. If it is 5 years, which I doubt unless you are on other forums, then it is 5 years of you failing to understand how your arguments are logically flawed.

I have even started a thread to make it clear that my argument is not a fallacy to question the evidence. It is perfectly reasonable to ask, how did the gas chamber work? The fallacy starts, when, if you cannot work out how the gas chamber functioned, or you cannot believe it functioned, from the evidence available, you then conclude there was no gas chamber.

"Just because revisionists can't work out how it happened ..."

That you cannot work out how gassings were possible and that they left no traces of Prussian blue and low HCN residue, is not evidence to prove that there were no gassings. It really is as simple as that. Your argument is in the form of the logical fallacy of argument from incredulity. You are claiming that because you cannot work out how it was possible, therefore it was not possible. I have been specific, giving you multiple reasons and explanations, as to why your argument is flawed. At most, Rudolf has questioned the chemistry, but other chemists say they have the answers. At best the evidence is now disputed, it is not the case that gassings are now disproved. The reason for that, is all the evidence gassings took place, reinforced by your inability to evidence another function taking place. At most all you can do, is suggest some other functions, showers, delousing, corpse store and air raid shelter. The evidence of usage is in favour of Markiewicz and Green. If you could prove the Leichenkellers were in fact used to store corpses, the evidence of usage would switch to being in favour of Rudolf. Until that happens, all you have is Rudolf's argument from incredulity, that he thinks, based on his calculations, it is not possible for gassings to have happened.

The same applies to arguments about coke for the ovens, wood for the pyres, the ventilation systems. That you cannot believe, due to a lack of evidence, that the Nazis got enough wood to the AR camps for what you think the pyres would have needed, is not evidence to prove there were no pyres. Your disbelief that the ventilation system, as described by witnesses and from the limited documentary evidence, could have worked to remove the gas, is not evidence to prove there was no gas chamber.

You know that if you accept the evidential and logical approach I, and all the historians use, then you would have to drop your primary argument and accept your beliefs are wrong. You cannot cope with the challenge, so you censor it.

[Nessie]

"Just because revisionists can't work out how it happened ..."

This guy thinks the Holocaust is like a physics equation.

In science, there are theories and models, like the formation of the moon, the solar system, galaxies, and even the universe. Each one is supported by well-established physical models. Is it absolute truth? No, the best and most accepted models still have much to explain.

In the case of the Holocaust, is the evidence offered beyond any reasonable doubt? Far from it.

That is only your opinion. In universities and courts in many countries, the evidence has been gathered and assessed and the primary events of the Holocaust, in particular mass murder by gas and shooting, has been proven.

If they cannot precisely establish how the bodies were disposed of satisfactorily, the question remains in the realm of plausibility.

That you do not think the evidence of how the bodies were disposed of, is satisfactory and implausible, does not therefore mean there was no mass disposal of bodies. The disposal of corpses is not proven, or disproved, by anyone's opinion on plausibility. It is proven, or disproved, by evidence. You don't have any evidence, so you resort to opinion.

It's plausible to cremate millions of bodies and gas them beforehand, but for the equation, clear elements are needed to establish a truth that is not entirely clear, since it's impossible, but from a historiographical point of view, it's far from being questioned.

Exterminationists claim that almost 1 million were killed in Treblinka; we maintain that a fraction of that number died there. Based on the evidence we have, which one is closer to the truth? Furthermore, was this search meticulous or limited due to concerns about desecration and cancel culture?

The documentary, eyewitness and physical evidence corroborates to prove c800,000 were killed and buried/cremated at TII.
You have no documentary or eyewitness evidence to counter that and you merely dispute the physical evidence, rather than produce physical evidence that supports your claim.

[Nessie]

They can't even establish where the bodies came from. They just have nebulous statistical cohorts generated by various means. Just counting train cars is one method, and, I'm not even sure they actually did that. Didn't Vrba deduce that something like 750,000 Hungarian jews were 'gassed at Auschwitz' using that method, I'll go check.

Documentary evidence records transports to the AR camps and A-B from camps and ghettos all over Europe. Eyewitness speak to seeing, being on and guarding those transports.

That eyewitness estimations of the numbers vary, and some are clearly wrong, is to be expected. They will make errors with their estimations. There are some very specific documentary records, such as the Hofle Telegram and Dutch transport lists. From that, there is proof of mass transports to the death camps.

[Nessie]

This is not a fallacious critique of the evidence. From Stubble,

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=21980#p21980

Regardless, if you are going to tell me that there was a German policy of extermination of those of the jewish faith, you are gonna have to show me where, because it wasn't along the Bug river and it didn't happen in homicidal gas chambers. Or murder vans.

The evidence doesn't fit the claim.

Much time is spent on Kula's columns and desiel vs gasoline, but, ultimately, it is for naught, because, it isn't just the murder weapon that is missing, it is the victims. You can't even tell me who died. We are passed 80 years removed from the event and yet even still you can't even tell me who is missing, you just point at a chart and say, 'my god, it's millions'...

His critique is that there is none, or there is insufficient, evidence. He is wrong. The murder weapons are not missing. In the east, the murder weapon was rifles and pistols, which left ammunition to be found at many of the mass shooting sites. Many mass shootings were photographed or filmed and we have the locations of thousands of them. In Poland, the murder weapon was gas chambers. The locations of the chambers is known and physical remains have been located.

Stubble has then got himself confused about the victims being missing. If they had been killed and their bodies disposed of by cremation, we would expect then to be missing. For a murder victim to be missing, as in they were not murdered, then they should be found alive, somewhere.

As for not being able to say who died, there are lists of the dead in national and Holocaust specific archives. Lists of names can be found at the Riga ghetto, Westerbork transit camp, USHMM, Bad Arolsen and Yad Vashem.

There are precise details of who is missing, from all of the occupied Western European countries. The details are less precise, in Eastern Europe as there was often little local record keeping. If the Jews of a village in Latvia or Poland were rounded up, sent to a nearby temporary ghetto and then shot, then many names are not known.

Stubbles's critique of the evidence is not illogical, it is otherwise flawed due to misrepresentation and his ignorance of what evidence there is.

[Nessie]

Stubble again, as he tries really hard and succeeds in pretending, to himself, that there is hardly any evidence of mass graves at TII. Such self-deception is remarkable.

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=22006#p22006

To view where the wire was, you are going to have to click on my quoted post of myself, because the attachments didn't carry over. Sorry about that. Regardless, there aren't 'mass graves covered by trees' in the extermination area.

You basically have g51, g52, g53 and g54. That's, a fucking thimble.

[Nessie]

More lying and misrepresentation from Callafangers. Arguably, this is the logical fallacy of straw manning.

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=22010#p22010

On physical evidence:

bombsaway wrote:
I'll be honest with you. I don't even care enough to have read any of the chemistry stuff in this debate.

Nessie wrote:
Fifty-six (56) Olympic sized swimming pools chock-filled with Jews at Treblinka! Oh wait, nevermind...

SanityCheck wrote:
‍

Lol.

This crap is so easily debunked that it is no wonder there is now censorship of those who critique the Holocaust deniers here.

[Nazgul]

This crap is so easily debunked that it is no wonder there is now censorship of those who critique the Holocaust deniers here.

Calling this ‘censorship by Holocaust deniers’ is absurd. No one is silencing anyone—what’s actually happening is that sloppy claims, straw men, and hyperbole get exposed. If you want to be taken seriously, drop the mockery and emojis, stick to clear evidence, and argue the facts instead of whining about being ‘censored.’ Truth doesn’t fear scrutiny.

[Nessie]

This crap is so easily debunked that it is no wonder there is now censorship of those who critique the Holocaust deniers here.

Calling this ‘censorship by Holocaust deniers’ is absurd. No one is silencing anyone—what’s actually happening is that sloppy claims, straw men, and hyperbole get exposed. If you want to be taken seriously, drop the mockery and emojis, stick to clear evidence, and argue the facts instead of whining about being ‘censored.’ Truth doesn’t fear scrutiny.

I have two active threads at the moment, where I post evidence to prove Archie lied when he claimed that I said critiquing evidence is a fallacy and the repeated use of the argument from incredulity by the revisionists here. Archie doee not want his lies and the common use of a logical fallacy to be openly exposed, so he censors the debate by restriction.

The sloppy claims, straw men, hyperbole and emojis are not from me. Stop projecting.

[Archie]

According to Nessie, doing chemical tests on the walls is a fallacy, critiquing the ventilation system is fallacy, poking holes in witness statements is a fallacy.

Here is Nessie dismissing Germar Rudolf's entire body of work on grounds of "argument from incredulity."

"Holocaust deniers rely on the logically flawed argument from incredulity. Rudolf argues, because he has doubts gassings took place, that means gassings did not take place. Since that doubt is illogical & causes the spread of hate, some countries have chosen to make it illegal." (Nessie, 14 Dec 2024)

Source: https://x.com/Nessieisreality/status/18 ... 9495762142

Nessie claims that Germar bases his conclusions entirely on the fact that "he has doubts," ignoring the huge volume of substantive critiques he has produced. That is an outrageous misrepresentation, and this bozo has the nerve to complain about revisionists straw-manning him.

Here is Nessie saying that critiquing the ventilation system is not allowed because it would be, you guessed it, an "argument from incredulity."

"Just because some revisionists, with no relevant expertise, think that an ACH of 10 is too low, does not make it so. That is the argument from incredulity. Fact is, an ACH of 10 will clear a well ventilated space of 99% + airborne contaminants in 35 minutes and the expert in the system, the witness Schultze, states that was enough, using the forced air ventilation he designed. Schultze is corroborated by other witnesses who worked at the Kremas, some of whom report still having to use gas masks when entering the chambers, so maybe the system did not work quite as well as he thought. But, evidentially, the ventilated gas chambers are proven to have operated, therefore revisionist doubts are moot." (Nessie, 15 Mar 2024)

Source: https://rodoh.info/post/16145/thread

This sort of stupidity is why Nessie is not allowed on the Debate board. It is a waste of people's time to respond to an idiot who thinks he can win every argument by uttering "fallacy." This is a violation of the forum rules.

Refrain from unsupported disagreement. This means that if you disagree with something or think it is incorrect, you must explain why you disagree or show why it's incorrect. A mere expression of disapproval is not sufficient.

"Argument from incredulity" is not an acceptable rebuttal, especially not when you try to use it in every single thread and are using it wrong a majority of time.

[Nessie]

According to Nessie, doing chemical tests on the walls is a fallacy, critiquing the ventilation system is fallacy, poking holes in witness statements is a fallacy.

Three lies in one sentence.

Here is Nessie dismissing Germar Rudolf's entire body of work on grounds of "argument from incredulity."

"Holocaust deniers rely on the logically flawed argument from incredulity. Rudolf argues, because he has doubts gassings took place, that means gassings did not take place. Since that doubt is illogical & causes the spread of hate, some countries have chosen to make it illegal." (Nessie, 14 Dec 2024)

Source: https://x.com/Nessieisreality/status/18 ... 9495762142

Nessie claims that Germar bases his conclusions entirely on the fact that "he has doubts," ignoring the huge volume of substantive critiques he has produced. That is an outrageous misrepresentation, and this bozo has the nerve to complain about revisionists straw-manning him.

Conducting chemical tests on the Kremas, is NOT A FALLACY.

The fallacy is when the results of the test are used to support an argument that it was not possible for gassings to have taken place, because the arguer cannot work out how mass gassings would leave low residues and no Prussian blue staining. Rudolf argues low levels and no PB must mean there were no gassings. The problem with that argument, is he is contradicted by the evidence of gassings. Other chemists have postulated reasons why the levels are low and there is no PB, and they are supported by the evidence of usage. Rudolf even admits he may be wrong and has a chapter about further testing that he thinks needs to take place.

Despite access to the camp and its archives, Rudolf has failed to find any evidence to prove that the Kremas were never used for gassings and produce a history of what took place in the buildings. He cannot find an eyewitness, or other contemporaneous evidence pertinent to the operation of the buildings, that proves what they were used for. That is why I say he is totally reliant on his argument.

I am quite sure, in other instances, if you saw two competing scientific claims and only one of the claims was backed by other evidence, you would believe the claim supported by the evidence. But, when it comes the Kremas, you switch to believing the claim not backed by other evidence.

Here is Nessie saying that critiquing the ventilation system is not allowed because it would be, you guessed it, an "argument from incredulity."

"Just because some revisionists, with no relevant expertise, think that an ACH of 10 is too low, does not make it so. That is the argument from incredulity. Fact is, an ACH of 10 will clear a well ventilated space of 99% + airborne contaminants in 35 minutes and the expert in the system, the witness Schultze, states that was enough, using the forced air ventilation he designed. Schultze is corroborated by other witnesses who worked at the Kremas, some of whom report still having to use gas masks when entering the chambers, so maybe the system did not work quite as well as he thought. But, evidentially, the ventilated gas chambers are proven to have operated, therefore revisionist doubts are moot." (Nessie, 15 Mar 2024)

Source: https://rodoh.info/post/16145/thread

This sort of stupidity is why Nessie is not allowed on the Debate board. It is a waste of people's time to respond to an idiot who thinks he can win every argument by uttering "fallacy." This is a violation of the forum rules.

First of all, critiquing the ventilation system is NOT A FALLACY.

You obviously still do not understand basic logic. That you do not believe the ventilation system could have coped with mass gassings, does not therefore evidence there were no mass gassings. When Schultze states that a 10 times ACH worked and you do not believe that and cannot work out how it could have worked, you have not proved it was impossible and that Schultze, or all the other eyewitnesses who worked at the Kremas, lied. Your incredulity is misplaced and it certainly is not evidence to prove there were no gas chambers.

The reason why you critique the ventilation system, is that you have no evidence to support your beliefs and produce a proven narrative for the operation of the Kremas. So you seek to undermine the evidence for gassings, as if that somehow proves there were no gassings. I am sorry, but neither you nor any other revisionist, is such an authority, that your opinion on possibility, is evidential.

Refrain from unsupported disagreement. This means that if you disagree with something or think it is incorrect, you must explain why you disagree or show why it's incorrect. A mere expression of disapproval is not sufficient.

"Argument from incredulity" is not an acceptable rebuttal, especially not when you try to use it in every single thread and are using it wrong a majority of time.

The problem is that you use that form of argument, constantly, with your critiquing of the gas chambers, ovens, pyres and graves. Your argument is in the form of you cannot believe and work out how gassings etc were possible as described and evidenced, therefore there were no gassings etc, the witnesses all lied. When you "poke holes" in the witness evidence, you do so in a way that ignores all the studies about witnesses. I have found it very easy to find the argument from incredulity being used;

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=728

I have asked you to explain logically and evidentially, how your doubts about the ability of the ventilation systems installed by Topf & Sons to ventilate gas chambers, is evidence to prove there were no gas chambers. You cannot successfully answer that question, by just repeating your argument about why you do not believe the system could have worked. You need to explain how your disbelief acts as evidence to disprove there were no gassings etc.

[Keen]

The documentary, eyewitness and physical evidence corroborates to prove c800,000 were killed and buried/cremated at TII. You have no documentary or eyewitness evidence to counter that and you merely dispute the physical evidence, rather than produce physical evidence that supports your claim.

Unsubstantiated allegations do not cooroborate, no matter how many you cite.

The documentary, eyewitness and physical evidence corroborates to prove c800,000 were killed and buried/cremated at TII.

The "evidence" you proffer has no evidentiary value.

The "proof" you allege doesn't meet even the lowest standard of proof in a U.S. court.

A $1,000.00 bet - can be made for each one of the 100 fraudulently alleged / insinuated - mass graves / burial / cremation pits - of Belzec, Chelmno, Ponary, Sobibor and Treblinka II - wagering that you can conclusively prove that they have been scientifically proven to actually exist and to currently contain the remains of at least 21 people. (That is less than one one thousandth of one percent of the alleged mass murder.)

To accept this - HOLOCAUST ARCHAEOLOGY HOAX CHALLENGE - simply challenge Greg Gerdes (see contact information below) to accept the following - Prove That It Has Been Proven - Wager:

I, roberta muehlenkamp, am so confident that the so-called Belzec, Chelmno, Ponary, Sobibor and Treblinka II “holocausts within the holocaust” happened as alleged in orthodox historiography, and that the archaeological / forensic / geophysical / scientific investigations of these five sites were legitimate, and that the alleged “huge mass grave discoveries” were conclusively validated; that I am willing to bet Greg Gerdes $1,000.00 that I can definitively prove - in a publicized debate and in a U.S. civil court - that there is a preponderance of conclusively documented and substantiated archaeological / forensic / geophysical / scientific evidence which proves, with 100 % certainty, that _?_ grave number _?_ currently contains the remains of - NO LESS THAN _?_ people. Furthermore, I agree that if I refuse to answer any question or get caught lying during our debate or while in court - I lose the bet / case right then and there.

http://thisisaboutscience.com/

What are you waiting for roberta?

Why are you so afraid of Mr. Gerdes?

[Keen]

Stubble again, as he tries really hard and succeeds in pretending, to himself, that there is hardly any evidence of mass graves at TII. Such self-deception is remarkable.

What's really remarkable is roberta's mental illness. She can't even prove that a mass grave actually exists at TII.

Additionally, and independent of any other Holocaust Archaeology Hoax Challenge, a - $100.00 reward - is being offered for each one of the 100 alleged graves / cremation pits in question that is proven - with the same standard of proof applied in U. S. civil courts - to actually exist and to currently contain the remains of - at least 2 people. (That is less than one tenth of one one thousandth of one percent of the alleged mass murder.)

http://thisisaboutscience.com/

Nesserta:

Geophysics scientifically and conclusively proves that there are pits and that they exist. But it does not prove that those pits contain human remains.

[Nessie]

I see Archie has backed off from his lie, that I said critiquing evidence is a fallacy.

[Archie]

I see Archie has backed off from his lie, that I said critiquing evidence is a fallacy.

I retract nothing.

You are tactically conceding that it is theoretically permissible for revisionists to critique the evidence, but you are only doing that temporarily because you know you would sound like a buffoon if you argued for that explicitly. In practice, you continue to handwave EVERY. SINGLE. POINT. that is brought up with your lazy little trump cards.

When you start engaging with revisionist arguments (i.e., real counterarguments) instead of handwaving, then I will believe you are serious about critiquing the evidence. Until then I will justifiably criticize you.