Historians v revisionists, methodology.

[Keen]

Historians gather evidence to find out what happened. Revisionists deny that evidence claiming it is too improbable to believe.

“HUGE MASS GRAVES”

are easily identifiable physical entities.

I refuse to believe in the existence of any

physical entity that I am not allowed to see.

If you want me to believe, then simply:

Show me that which you allege I deny.

* * * * *

If the physical evidence for an alleged crime that - HAS TO EXIST - for the crime to have

actually happened - DOES NOT EXIST - then the alleged crime obviously - DID NOT HAPPEN.

(No matter how much other so-called "evidence" is proffered to the contrary.)

Ergo: The orthodox “pure extermination center” story is - A PROVEN, NONSENSICAL BIG-LIE.

[Nessie]

Bombsaway is spot on when he states;

Your confirmation bias hits because you are literally unable to critically examine your narrative of "witnesses lying"

So far, attempts to get revisionists here to explain and justify their methods of analysing witness evidence, have failed. They cannot do it.

[Keen]

So far, attempts to get revisionists here to explain and justify their methods of analysing witness evidence, have failed. They cannot do it.

Speaking of those who "cannot do it."

Nessie / roberta:

Something is proved not to have existed when no evidence is found to prove its existence.

[Nessie]

I believe this quote is taken from Mattogno;

https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.ph ... nce#p23241

He says they are in agreement repeatedly aside from the example I mentioned

"it remains to explain the concordance between the testimonies of Kula and Tauber."

"It is finally necessary to establish if the testimonies of Kula and Tauber on
this matter are independent of each other. Seeing that the descriptions of the
columns given by these two witnesses coincide and that these columns were
never constructed, it is clear that we are dealing with a concordance of falsehood"

The use of the term concordance here, is as the term corroborate is normally used. Kula and Tauber corroborate each other that there was a metal column inside Krema II, used to introduce the Zyklon B pellets. They both worked there and they are corroborated by other witness descriptions of a metal column.

Mattogno has no evidence the columns were never constructed, instead, he just does not believe the evidence they were constructed. The damage to the inside of the Leichenkellers at Kremas II and III is such that no physical examination is possible, to look for physical traces of the columns and the columns themselves have never been found. It is likely they were destroyed as there was a general cover up and destruction of evidence.

Revisionist rejection of the norms of evidencing, with no viable rational alternative, means their claims should be rejected as pseudo-history.

[Nessie]

https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=23266#p23266

It is well known also that if multiple witnesses concur with a testimony that defies the laws of physics or is demonstrably false in other particulars, that they are a.) suffering from a mass-delusion OR b.) are conspiring to pervert the cause of justice /history.

That in principle is true. Therefore, in practice, it does not apply to testimony that does not defy the laws of physics or is otherwise demonstrably false, such as Germans building metal columns in the Auschwitz camp workshop.

It does not matter that the witness recollection of what the columns looked like, or how they functioned, varied. That variance is to be expected, when witnesses are remembering something they saw some time in the past and they have not colluded and worked on the description together.

[Nessie]

Archie, in the thread on Kula columns but he makes a point that applies here;

viewtopic.php?p=23366#p23366

That's on you since you refuse to explain your position.

You have locked down discussion on methodology, and you have failed to explain the link between witnesses describing the Kula column and whether it existed or not.

You believe these columns actually existed in physical reality. So what were they like and how did they work? Or is it impossible to know?

You obviously do not believe they existed, but how do you reach that conclusion? Is it because you do not believe the witness descriptions and are unable to figure out to your satisfaction how they could have worked? If so, how does that prove there were no columns, explain the link between your doubts and reality.

These columns have never been produced, nor have plans for them ever been produced. We must rely entirely on these contradictory testimonies along with a single ambiguous reference on an inventory document that could refer to almost anything. There are important technical implications, depending on which version of the story is assumed.

What are the implications? Multiple witnesses, both Jewish and Nazi, describe the columns inside only Kremas II and III. The inventory document is for Krema II. Nothing else even closely resembling it, is referenced in any other document. That makes for strong corroboration, proving their existence. How is that wrong and your assessment correct? How are you going to justify overturning the widely used and trusted principle of corroboration?

And now you pile on more insults, completely unprovoked, to evade discussion of these points.

You have formalised the evasion of discussion of methodology, by quarantining me and banning discussion about a commonly used logical fallacy.

[Archie]

You obviously do not believe they existed, but how do you reach that conclusion? Is it because you do not believe the witness descriptions and are unable to figure out to your satisfaction how they could have worked? If so, how does that prove there were no columns, explain the link between your doubts and reality.

I don't believe in the Kula columns, but you are jumping way ahead. We have not gotten that far in that thread. We are still trying to figure out what these were and what the evidence is for their existence. Review the evidence first and then draw the conclusion. It seems to me that you and bombs do not want to discuss the testimonies.

[Archie]

You have locked down discussion on methodology,

Nope. That is fine. You have been restricted because you were running afoul of forum rules.

-Signal to noise ratio
-Unsupported disagreement
-Principle of charity
-Inadequately sourced claims/dodging/evasion

[Nessie]

You obviously do not believe they existed, but how do you reach that conclusion? Is it because you do not believe the witness descriptions and are unable to figure out to your satisfaction how they could have worked? If so, how does that prove there were no columns, explain the link between your doubts and reality.

I don't believe in the Kula columns, but you are jumping way ahead. We have not gotten that far in that thread. We are still trying to figure out what these were ...

We know what they were, metal, mesh, wire, columns used to introduce and then remove Zyklon B pellets into Kremas II and III.

...and what the evidence is for their existence.

We also know that. It comes from multiple eyewitnesses, Nazi and Jewish and an inventory. We also know why there is a lack of physical evidence, as the Nazis destroyed it.

Review the evidence first and then draw the conclusion.

You just admitted that you do not believe in the columns, before fully reviewing the evidence.

It seems to me that you and bombs do not want to discuss the testimonies.

Except we have discussed the testimonies.

[Nessie]

You have locked down discussion on methodology,

Nope. That is fine. You have been restricted because you were running afoul of forum rules.

-Signal to noise ratio
-Unsupported disagreement
-Principle of charity
-Inadequately sourced claims/dodging/evasion

I note that you provide no evidence to back up any of your claims. You have just admitted to disbelieving the claims about Kula columns before fully reviewing the evidence. You have closed down discussion on how you review the evidence, as you cannot support it.

You have no evidence to prove that Tauber, Mueller and Erber lied and there was no such thing as a metal column inside the Leichenkellers of Kremas II and III. All you have is your biased disbelief.

[Archie]

You just admitted that you do not believe in the columns, before fully reviewing the evidence.

Dishonest and bad faith on your part. Your inability to understand nuance is why you are so bad at this. Obviously I have reviewed this evidence before. And all of my opinions are, in principle, open to revision based on new evidence, unlike yours which are fixed and immune to new information.

What I said was that in that discussion we were still discussing the first two witnesses. We still haven't pinned down what the orthodox side actually believes since you all have contradictory opinions about the columns.

Except we have discussed the testimonies.

We're not done. Your analysis is incomplete and unsatisfactory.

[Nessie]

You just admitted that you do not believe in the columns, before fully reviewing the evidence.

Dishonest and bad faith on your part. Your inability to understand nuance is why you are so bad at this. Obviously I have reviewed this evidence before. And all of my opinions are, in principle, open to revision based on new evidence, unlike yours which are fixed and immune to new information.

Please evidence that claim. It was new to me that Kula did not describe a canister, but other witnesses did. I have since changed my position to that of, there was likely a change from the construction Kula described to the usage Tauber and Erber described, from my previous position of the witnesses are not consistently remembering the columns when they were recollecting how they were constructed.

What I said was that in that discussion we were still discussing the first two witnesses. We still haven't pinned down what the orthodox side actually believes since you all have contradictory opinions about the columns.

So you admit we are still in discussion due to alleged contradictions, but you have still made up our mind. Or are you prepared to admit the witnesses may be telling the truth and the columns existed?

Except we have discussed the testimonies.

We're not done. Your analysis is incomplete and unsatisfactory.

It will remain incomplete and unsatisfactory to you, because no one can be certain why the witness descriptions vary. Historians expect and can work with uncertainty. Based on the studies of memory and recall, they do not expect consistency, and they determine that the witnesses are being truthful about the columns, because of the corroboration.

You think it means the witnesses lied and it means you can claim the columns never existed. This thread was an opportunity for you to explain your methodology for determining witness lying, which you resolutely refuse to do.

[HansHill]

It was new to me that Kula did not describe a canister, but other witnesses did.

Yet another demonstration if we needed any, that you are here just to regurgitate slop en masse.

I hope the mods don't object to this, but i felt I would dig up the old "Kula Columns" thread, where users such as Stubble and I are BEGGING Nessie to please understand the variation in descriptions and he simply refuses to:

Here is him relaying the column descriptions:

https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=2916#p2916

So he either didn't read what he was posting, or didn't understand it. Or worse yet, was simply trying to be dishonest and waste everyone's time.

Here we have two descriptions that Nessie repeats side by side, NEITHER with a canister, all the while gloating and blathering that everything is fine and dandy:

https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=3518#p3518

This entire thread demonstrates the inanity of this poster and perfectly encapsulates why he is relegated to the slop bin.

[Nessie]

It was new to me that Kula did not describe a canister, but other witnesses did.

Yet another demonstration if we needed any, that you are here just to regurgitate slop en masse.

I hope the mods don't object to this, but i felt I would dig up the old "Kula Columns" thread, where users such as Stubble and I are BEGGING Nessie to please understand the variation in descriptions and he simply refuses to:

Here is him relaying the column descriptions:

https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=2916#p2916

So he either didn't read what he was posting, or didn't understand it. Or worse yet, was simply trying to be dishonest and waste everyone's time.

Here we have two descriptions that Nessie repeats side by side, NEITHER with a canister, all the while gloating and blathering that everything is fine and dandy:

https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=3518#p3518

This entire thread demonstrates the inanity of this poster and perfectly encapsulates why he is relegated to the slop bin.

In this thread, the discussion is about the difference in methodology between historians and revisionists.

A historian reads the statements of Tauber, Mueller and Erber. Evidence confirms that all three worked at A-B in 1943, their provenance is established. They are clearly describing the same object, and that metal column is unique to Kremas II and III. There is an inventory from 1943, for Krema II that refers to the same object. It cannot have been mistaken for something else. The witnesses and document all refer to a wire mesh metal device that operates by sliding. There are differences in the descriptions, which is to be expected, as people remember and recall different details. When they estimate its size and describe how it looked, there will be variations. The variations mean that it is unlikely there was collusion, with the witnesses agreeing between each other to say what they saw. The historians are not sure why Kula does not refer to a canister inside the columns, but Tauber and Erber do. There are various reasons why that happened. Either they just have different memories and recall, or Tauber saw the pillar when it was constructed, whilst the others saw it in operation. Its design may have been altered to make it function more effectively. Historians are used to inconsistencies and expect them. Since there are describing the same object and its function, it has been established that the witnesses corroborate each other and the document provides further corroboration. Corroboration is the standard method, used by historians, journalists and the courts, to determine truthfulness. That is now it is determined Tuaber, Mueller and Erber are telling the truth and the Kremas II and III had metal columns used to introduce and extract Zyklon B.

HansHill, like Archie, is unable to explain, as I have just done, how their methodology works, what it is based on and why the method used by historians is wrong. That is why he goes on the attack and has a go at me.

I challenge both of them to explain, step by step, how they assess the truthfulness of Tauber, Mueller and Erber and whether or not they lied about the existence of the column.

[Archie]

It was new to me that Kula did not describe a canister, but other witnesses did.

Yet another demonstration if we needed any, that you are here just to regurgitate slop en masse.

I hope the mods don't object to this, but i felt I would dig up the old "Kula Columns" thread, where users such as Stubble and I are BEGGING Nessie to please understand the variation in descriptions and he simply refuses to:

Here is him relaying the column descriptions:

https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=2916#p2916

So he either didn't read what he was posting, or didn't understand it. Or worse yet, was simply trying to be dishonest and waste everyone's time.

Here we have two descriptions that Nessie repeats side by side, NEITHER with a canister, all the while gloating and blathering that everything is fine and dandy:

https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=3518#p3518

This entire thread demonstrates the inanity of this poster and perfectly encapsulates why he is relegated to the slop bin.

Ha. And the real issue with him is not even so much that he is sloppy and a bad researcher. That can be forgiven. It's more the way he's always so quick to shut down the discussion without doing the work.

These witnesses say something vaguely similar, so they corroborate each other. Ergo columns were real. End of discussion. If you question this hasty conclusion, you are doing fallacies.