Logical Fallacies [Remedial education for Nessie]

[HansHill]

I am not wrong. Regarding supposedly begging the question, Dr Patru failed to explain why.

No offense, but he doesn't need to explain it to you, it makes perfect sense to probably most posters here, from both sides. This is the kind of thing that attracts huge negative attention to your approach, and one of the reasons why you allow for very simple and satisfying slam dunks to your gibberish. Yes, i know you probably don't understand this, but again no offense, everyone else does.

[Nessie]

I am not wrong. Regarding supposedly begging the question, Dr Patru failed to explain why.

No offense, but he doesn't need to explain it to you, it makes perfect sense to probably most posters here, from both sides. This is the kind of thing that attracts huge negative attention to your approach, and one of the reasons why you allow for very simple and satisfying slam dunks to your gibberish. Yes, i know you probably don't understand this, but again no offense, everyone else does.

I would like an explanation. Why is my argument begging the question?

You dodged this;

If engineer A states that it was physically impossible for the Nazis to fire a rocket from northern France to London in 1944 and engineer B states that it was physically possible, how would you determine which theory is correct? Would it not be reasonable to look for evidence of rockets being fired and if evidence is found, conclude engineer B is correct and engineer A was wrong?

Please answer.

[HansHill]

I am not wrong. Regarding supposedly begging the question, Dr Patru failed to explain why.

No offense, but he doesn't need to explain it to you, it makes perfect sense to probably most posters here, from both sides. This is the kind of thing that attracts huge negative attention to your approach, and one of the reasons why you allow for very simple and satisfying slam dunks to your gibberish. Yes, i know you probably don't understand this, but again no offense, everyone else does.

I would like an explanation. Why is my argument begging the question?

You dodged this;

If engineer A states that it was physically impossible for the Nazis to fire a rocket from northern France to London in 1944 and engineer B states that it was physically possible, how would you determine which theory is correct? Would it not be reasonable to look for evidence of rockets being fired and if evidence is found, conclude engineer B is correct and engineer A was wrong?

Please answer.

Sure, since you have asked nicely, i don't mind repeating another slam dunk on you.

Your argument is begging the question because it asserts independently of Dr Green's writing that the conclusion is self-evident. Firstly, this contradicts what Dr Green was attempting to do, in that he was attempting independently of the eyewitnesses, to debunk Rudolf, that is - not to rely on the eyewitnesses at all. Green's hypothesis should hold by itself that gassings took place even if nobody was around to see them. Your fallacy strips him of that, in that he needs external support by eyewitnesses. Secondly, I was asking why you believe Dr Green rebutted Rudolf in their exchanges. Those exchanges took place between 1998 and 2003. I was holding out against all hope that you would cite some meaningful argument from Dr Green in those exchanges, but instead you pointed back 5 decades to eyewitness accounts which was not the question at all.

Re engineers debating rocket trajectory. A good approach would be to first look at the engineering manuals, military archives and the specifications of the technology and equipment at the time to ascertain was this possible. If the known constants show it was possible, then nothing further is needed to address the question, that it was possible. If the constants are inconclusive, we can begin to look at the variables, like weather at the time in question, resources, staffing etc to help get us closer.

If it's still inconclusive, we can look for material evidence of this happening before, while controlling for other parameters such as i) did these rockets land after the period in question, ii) did these rockets originate somewhere else, iii) is there any other known explanation as to how this rocket got here. What we probably wouldn't do is begin to fire WW2 era rockets from France into London as this is too haphazard for obvious reasons.

After examining the constants, the variables and the physical record, you'll have a pretty reasonable account of whether this was possible or not.

Whats more important however is what you would not do. You would not rely on the unreliable eyewitness testimony of known liars and ignore and / or criminalise the rational steps above.

[Nessie]

No offense, but he doesn't need to explain it to you, it makes perfect sense to probably most posters here, from both sides. This is the kind of thing that attracts huge negative attention to your approach, and one of the reasons why you allow for very simple and satisfying slam dunks to your gibberish. Yes, i know you probably don't understand this, but again no offense, everyone else does.

I would like an explanation. Why is my argument begging the question?

You dodged this;

If engineer A states that it was physically impossible for the Nazis to fire a rocket from northern France to London in 1944 and engineer B states that it was physically possible, how would you determine which theory is correct? Would it not be reasonable to look for evidence of rockets being fired and if evidence is found, conclude engineer B is correct and engineer A was wrong?

Please answer.

Sure, since you have asked nicely, i don't mind repeating another slam dunk on you.

Your argument is begging the question because it asserts independently of Dr Green's writing that the conclusion is self-evident. Firstly, this contradicts what Dr Green was attempting to do, in that he was attempting independently of the eyewitnesses, to debunk Rudolf, that is - not to rely on the eyewitnesses at all. Green's hypothesis should hold by itself that gassings took place even if nobody was around to see them. Your fallacy strips him of that, in that he needs external support by eyewitnesses. Secondly, I was asking why you believe Dr Green rebutted Rudolf in their exchanges. Those exchanges took place between 1998 and 2003. I was holding out against all hope that you would cite some meaningful argument from Dr Green in those exchanges, but instead you pointed back 5 decades to eyewitness accounts which was not the question at all.

I have not asserted that the conclusion is self-evident. I have used evidence to determine the conclusion, hence, I am not begging the question. I have used the standard historical and criminal methods of gathering evidence from contemporaneous sources, to evidence gassings place inside the Kremas. It is odd that you think you have a slam dunk, when I am using evidence to prove gassings, I am not claiming they are self-evident. But, you constantly misrepresent my actual arguments.

Green has proven that the residues are too low for clothing to have been deloused inside the Kremas. Rudolf agrees with that, which embarrassingly for many revisionists, ruins their claims that the Kremas were used for delousing. Mattogno included delousing as an action that happened, and many deniers on X argue the same. Green and Rudolf then disagree whether the residue is enough for homicidal gassings to have taken place. Since Rudolf accepts there are residual traces, and basic delousing of rooms to fumigate them would kill people inside those rooms, he should accept that levels are consistent with fatal levels of gas being present. The issue is, how often and to what level. Green claims it was often enough and to a level that accounts for homicidal gassings. Rudolf disagrees. To that extent, I say Green's hypothesis does hold by itself.

Having read the various reports, I believe Green, Markiewicz and Robel, and that there are traces to prove the use of Zyklon B in the Kremas. I do not believe Rudolf's claim the traces are too low, or Leuchter's claim of no traces. That does not mean Green etc have conclusively proved people were gassed, for that, we need other evidential sources, to check if the science is correct.

Re engineers debating rocket trajectory. A good approach would be to first look at the engineering manuals, military archives and the specifications of the technology and equipment at the time to ascertain was this possible. If the known constants show it was possible, then nothing further is needed to address the question, that it was possible. If the constants are inconclusive, we can begin to look at the variables, like weather at the time in question, resources, staffing etc to help get us closer.

If it's still inconclusive, we can look for material evidence of this happening before, while controlling for other parameters such as i) did these rockets land after the period in question, ii) did these rockets originate somewhere else, iii) is there any other known explanation as to how this rocket got here. What we probably wouldn't do is begin to fire WW2 era rockets from France into London as this is too haphazard for obvious reasons.

After examining the constants, the variables and the physical record, you'll have a pretty reasonable account of whether this was possible or not.

Exactly, if there is evidence of rockets being fired from northern France, in the air over the Channel and landing in London, from documents, film, witnesses and physical remains of the rockets in craters, you have proved engineer B is correct.

Whats more important however is what you would not do. You would not rely on the unreliable eyewitness testimony of known liars and ignore and / or criminalise the rational steps above.

Agreed. I do not rely on eyewitnesses. I only use corroborated eyewitnesses and the convergence of ALL forms of evidence to determine if homicidal gassings took place. That includes the forensic evidence provided by Green etc.

[HansHill]

You are beyond self-reflection. This thread will stand for people from both sides to read and see for themselves!

[ConfusedJew]

Here are some of the most common logical fallacies that are used by people do reject the existence of the Holocaust.

1. Argument from Ignorance (Appeal to Ignorance)
Fallacy: “If we don’t have [X piece of evidence], then it didn’t happen.”
Example: “There are no photos of mass graves full of skeletons at Treblinka, so the mass killings must be fake.”
Why it’s false: Absence of a specific photo does not disprove extensive forensic, testimonial, documentary, and physical evidence.

2. Cherry-Picking (Suppressing Evidence)
Fallacy: Only using selected data that supports their point while ignoring the larger body of evidence that contradicts it.
Example: “One train manifest is missing, so the whole transport record is unreliable.”
Why it’s false: Thousands of train records, survivor testimonies, German orders, and camp staff confessions converge consistently. One gap doesn’t invalidate the bulk.

3. Straw Man
Fallacy: Misrepresenting historians’ actual claims so they can attack a distorted version.
Example: “Historians claim there should be perfectly preserved mass graves with intact skeletons.”
Why it’s false: Professional historians know remains decompose, are burned, and that remains are fragmentary — the straw man misstates what the evidence actually shows.

4. Moving the Goalposts
Fallacy: When evidence is provided, deniers reject it and demand ever more impossible proof.
Example: “Show documents ordering the Holocaust.” → [Orders shown.] → “Show video footage.” → [Video evidence of mass shootings exists.] → “But show gas chamber operations minute by minute.”
Why it’s false: It makes genuine evidence unreachable by shifting standards endlessly.

5. False Equivalence
Fallacy: Treating fringe denialist claims as equal in credibility to peer-reviewed scholarship.
Example: “Germar Rudolf’s self-published report is just as valid as court-tested forensic studies.”
Why it’s false: Scientific and legal standards weigh evidence quality, peer review, and cross-examination — not all claims are equally credible.

[HansHill]

Here are some of the most common logical fallacies that are used by people do reject the existence of the Holocaust.

1. Argument from Ignorance (Appeal to Ignorance)
Fallacy: “If we don’t have [X piece of evidence], then it didn’t happen.”
Example: “There are no photos of mass graves full of skeletons at Treblinka, so the mass killings must be fake.”
Why it’s false: Absence of a specific photo does not disprove extensive forensic, testimonial, documentary, and physical evidence.

2. Cherry-Picking (Suppressing Evidence)
Fallacy: Only using selected data that supports their point while ignoring the larger body of evidence that contradicts it.
Example: “One train manifest is missing, so the whole transport record is unreliable.”
Why it’s false: Thousands of train records, survivor testimonies, German orders, and camp staff confessions converge consistently. One gap doesn’t invalidate the bulk.

3. Straw Man
Fallacy: Misrepresenting historians’ actual claims so they can attack a distorted version.
Example: “Historians claim there should be perfectly preserved mass graves with intact skeletons.”
Why it’s false: Professional historians know remains decompose, are burned, and that remains are fragmentary — the straw man misstates what the evidence actually shows.

4. Moving the Goalposts
Fallacy: When evidence is provided, deniers reject it and demand ever more impossible proof.
Example: “Show documents ordering the Holocaust.” → [Orders shown.] → “Show video footage.” → [Video evidence of mass shootings exists.] → “But show gas chamber operations minute by minute.”
Why it’s false: It makes genuine evidence unreachable by shifting standards endlessly.

5. False Equivalence
Fallacy: Treating fringe denialist claims as equal in credibility to peer-reviewed scholarship.
Example: “Germar Rudolf’s self-published report is just as valid as court-tested forensic studies.”
Why it’s false: Scientific and legal standards weigh evidence quality, peer review, and cross-examination — not all claims are equally credible.

Please give specific examples of regular posters here misusing the above fallacies, or even better would be named Revisionists (Mattogno, Rudolf, Dalton, Graf etc) misusing them in a published work- bonus points for a direct link to the post for the former, and a citation for the latter.

I suspect the examples above are, very ironically, strawman representations of what Revisionists actually say.

Also, i have noticed an error in point 5, but I'm not going to address it just yet because I want to see where this goes.

[Wahrheitssucher]

Here are some of the most common logical fallacies that are used by people do reject the existence of the Holocaust.

3. Straw Man
Fallacy: Misrepresenting …actual claims so they can attack a distorted version.
Example: “Simpleton claims revisionists are arguing that the holocaust ‘did not happen’.”
Why it’s false: Reasonable people know that questioning core aspects of the ‘holocaust’ narrative is not denying anything, let alone denying it occurred at all — this straw man misstates what the actual argument is about.

[ConfusedJew]

I'll keep an eye out. I've seen Number 1 quite frequently when people deny that the Holocaust happened because no documented order from Hitler was ever found. I don't see why a document would have been necessary and secondly, just because its never been found didn't mean that it never existed.

Regarding number 2, I see a lot of people cherry picking problems with individual testimonies. Some people made mistakes, some lied, some were abused before giving testimony. But those were exceptions rather than the norm.

[ConfusedJew]

Here are some of the most common logical fallacies that are used by people do reject the existence of the Holocaust.

3. Straw Man
Fallacy: Misrepresenting …actual claims so they can attack a distorted version.
Example: “Simpleton claims revisionists are arguing that the holocaust ‘did not happen’.”
Why it’s false: Reasonable people know that questioning core aspects of the ‘holocaust’ narrative is not denying anything, let alone denying it occurred at all — this straw man misstates what the actual argument is about.

I've asked specifically what people on here believe and don't believe but I haven't gotten answers, only insults. I'm sure different people have different beliefs too.

The Holocaust is known as the genocide of European Jews during World War II. From 1941 to 1945, Nazi Germany and its collaborators systematically murdered some six million Jews across German-occupied Europe, around two-thirds of Europe's Jewish population. The murders were carried out primarily through mass shootings and poison gas in extermination camps, chiefly Auschwitz-Birkenau, Treblinka, Belzec, Sobibor, and Chełmno in occupied Poland. Separate Nazi persecutions killed a similar or larger number of non-Jewish civilians and prisoners of war (POWs); the term Holocaust is sometimes used to include the murder and persecution of non-Jewish groups.

What part of that generally accepted definition do you disagree with exactly?

[HansHill]

I'll keep an eye out. I've seen Number 1 quite frequently when people deny that the Holocaust happened because no documented order from Hitler was ever found. I don't see why a document would have been necessary and secondly, just because its never been found didn't mean that it never existed.

Regarding number 2, I see a lot of people cherry picking problems with individual testimonies. Some people made mistakes, some lied, some were abused before giving testimony. But those were exceptions rather than the norm.

I can explain why a Hitler Order would be an important "find" for Orthodoxy if it were to ever materialise, and you'll understand why it's absence is a -1 for Orthodoxy and a +1 for Revisionism, and argued as such.

In order for the Holocaust as defined to work, it must be a centralised government policy of extermination, ie top down. It cannot be, for example, an uncoordinated, decentralised string of reprisals from rogue SS officers or German villagers acting sporadically and haphazardly.

Because it by definition must be a centralised government dictated policy, the lack of a Hitler Order becomes material.

[Wahrheitssucher]

I've seen Number 1 quite frequently when people deny that the Holocaust happened… [snip]

Please quote and provide links to these “frequent” occassions of people writing “the holocaust never happened”.

[ConfusedJew]

Please quote and provide links to these “frequent” occassions of people writing “the holocaust never happened”.

Many people say that Jews were not gassed or killed and the strongest argument that they make is that nobody ever found Hitler's order. I'd rather not sift through this entire forum and would rather clarify what you mean and think in this thread more directly.

What do you think the Holocaust was exactly and how was it different from what most historians and textbooks say?

[ConfusedJew]

I can explain why a Hitler Order would be an important "find" for Orthodoxy if it were to ever materialise, and you'll understand why it's absence is a -1 for Orthodoxy and a +1 for Revisionism, and argued as such.

In order for the Holocaust as defined to work, it must be a centralised government policy of extermination, ie top down. It cannot be, for example, an uncoordinated, decentralised string of reprisals from rogue SS officers or German villagers acting sporadically and haphazardly.

Because it by definition must be a centralised government dictated policy, the lack of a Hitler Order becomes material.

The Nazi regime functioned through Führerprinzip — Hitler’s spoken will, but not always a paper trail. Many major Nazi policies (e.g., Night of the Long Knives, euthanasia program, Final Solution) were launched or modified verbally, then implemented by underlings who competed to interpret “the Führer’s will.” Numerous top SS leaders — Himmler, Heydrich, Goering — documented Hitler’s verbal authorizations in diaries, memos, and meeting minutes.

The fact that a direct written order was never found could mean that it was destroyed, or more likely that it never existed because Hitler didn't provide written orders for everything.

The existence of indirect orders has been heavily documented especially in Hitler, Himmler, and Gorings' public speeches.

[Wahrheitssucher]

Please quote and provide links to these “frequent” occassions of people writing “the holocaust never happened”.

Many people say that Jews were not gassed or killed and the strongest argument that they make is that nobody ever found Hitler's order. I'd rather not sift through this entire forum

You made a FALSE claim. You did so in order to deflect from being caught in a strawman argument. That is dishonest of you. You are repeatedly arguing in a dishonest way.

I would rather clarify what you mean and think in this thread more directly.

I don’t believe that is what you “would rather” do. I think that is another lie from you, to deflect from being caught in the previous lie. You aren’t really interested in what any revisionist “means and thinks”. You have demonstrated that repeatedly. You don’t read. Not books. Not replies. You don’t follow links. You don’t watch videos.
Why not be honest and explain why you are really here?

What do you think the Holocaust was exactly…

You are the one claiming you’ve seen numerous posts “denying it existed”. So what exactly is this ‘holocaust’ that YOU claim was “denied”?
And give precise quotes with links to the posts where the alleged ‘denial’ was written,