The CODOH Revisionist Forum

In 1850 Hincks read a paper before the British Association for the Advancement of Science in which he expressed some doubts concerning the general assumption that it was the Semitic inhabitants of Assyria and Babylonia who had invented the cuneiform system of writing, which they utilized. In the Semitic languages the stable element is the consonant, while the vowel is extremely variable. It seemed unnatural, therefore, that the Semites should invent a syllabic system of orthography in which the vowel seemed to be as unchanging as the consonant. The distinction between soft and hard palatals and dentals is a significant feature of the Semitic langauges, but the cuneiform syllabary did not seem to express this distinction adequately. Then, too, if the Semites had invented the cuneiform script, it should be possible to trace teh syllabic values of the signs to Semitic words. But this was rarely the case; the great majority of the syllabic values for the cuneiform signs seemed to go back to words or elements for which no Semitic equivalent could be found. Hincks thus begant o suspect that the cuneiform system of writing was invented by some non-Semitic people who had preceded the Semites in Babylonia.

Archie wrote: ↑Tue Feb 17, 2026 11:38 pm
If we were to treat all probabilistic judgments as "fallacious" this would render scholarship essentially impossible.

Archie wrote: ↑Tue Feb 17, 2026 11:38 pm Nessie's mistaken interpretation of "argument from incredulity" is so broad it would apply to countless well-reasoned scholarly arguments if he were to apply his rules consistently (which he doesn't).

Here's a random example from Kramer's The Sumerians: Their History, Culture, and Character.

In 1850 Hincks read a paper before the British Association for the Advancement of Science in which he expressed some doubts concerning the general assumption that it was the Semitic inhabitants of Assyria and Babylonia who had invented the cuneiform system of writing, which they utilized. In the Semitic languages the stable element is the consonant, while the vowel is extremely variable. It seemed unnatural, therefore, that the Semites should invent a syllabic system of orthography in which the vowel seemed to be as unchanging as the consonant. The distinction between soft and hard palatals and dentals is a significant feature of the Semitic langauges, but the cuneiform syllabary did not seem to express this distinction adequately. Then, too, if the Semites had invented the cuneiform script, it should be possible to trace teh syllabic values of the signs to Semitic words. But this was rarely the case; the great majority of the syllabic values for the cuneiform signs seemed to go back to words or elements for which no Semitic equivalent could be found. Hincks thus begant o suspect that the cuneiform system of writing was invented by some non-Semitic people who had preceded the Semites in Babylonia.

Words like "express doubt" and "it seemed unnatural" are, in Nessie's mind, sure-fire triggers for "argument from incredulity!" "Just because you think it's "unnatural" for speakers of a Semitic language to come up with that sort of syllabic writing system ..." Except it is unnatural and this Hincks guy was completely correct. Not only were Hincks's arguments not fallacious, they are examples of sensible and rigorous scholarship. If Nessie read any sort of scholarship (he doesn't even read Holocaust scholarship) he would realize this.

If we were to treat all probabilistic judgments as "fallacious" this would render scholarship essentially impossible.

HansHill wrote: ↑Wed Feb 18, 2026 8:32 am

Archie wrote: ↑Tue Feb 17, 2026 11:38 pm
If we were to treat all probabilistic judgments as "fallacious" this would render scholarship essentially impossible.

Imagine this mode of thinking in literally any other circumstance.

Nessie at a job interview: “Just because you cannot work out why I am hireable doesn’t mean you should not hire me”

Nessie as a prosecution attorney: “ladies and gentlemen of the jury - Just because you cannot work out how the suspect committed the crime doesnt mean he is innocent”

Nessie as an architect instructing a team of civil engineers: “Just because you cannot work out how to construct this infrastructure safely and under budget doesn’t mean you should stop”

Nessie as runner up for Best Lead Performance at the Oscars: “Just because you cannot work out how I am the best actor doesn’t mean I don’t deserve my Oscar”

Nessie after losing 10 - 0 in the World Cup: “Just because you can’t work out how i scored 11 goals without anybody noticing doesn’t mean i lost the game”

HansHill wrote: ↑Wed Feb 18, 2026 11:39 am I suppose technically you could call these straw man arguments; only i’m not debating you I’m mocking your misuse of them.

Lets flip this around, since this is a thread about examples of the argument from incredulity and since i’m such a simpleton and cannot understand how gassings took place; who can work it out? Point me to whichever expert it is that you feel has accounted for the lack of PB formation in Krema II.

Wow me!

(PS i’m half expecting you to say Markiewicz and I am feeling charitable so please do the bare minimum of research and review the recent “Sanity Check” thread where Dr Terry all but throws Markiewicz under the bus)

Stubble wrote: ↑Wed Feb 18, 2026 5:17 pm Nessie, the lack of Iron Blues is a lack of color on the palette leaving a lack of color on the painting.

Other colors are missing.

The only colors you throw at the canvas are Black (misread documents) and white (witness testimony). Literally every other color on the picture you present is missing. No records of maintenance to the Kremas congruent with the mass murder. No evidence of mass pyres on the scale alleged. No Iron Blues. No demonstrable evidence of the missing actually being missing.

You have absolutely nothing.

You pretend this is just about the Iron Blues, but, you are deluding yourself. You have literally nothing of substance to present in favor of your claim.

Nessie wrote: ↑Wed Feb 18, 2026 9:46 am Those words do indeed suggest it is possible the argument from incredulity is being used. Or, it is the expression of a reasoned doubt.

Nessie wrote: ↑Tue Feb 17, 2026 4:12 pm Both Stubble and Kean are unable, or unwilling to consider that they may be wrong

The Nazis were not trying to magically disappear the corpses and the graves.

All the mass graves dug by the Nazis, and the corpses they cremated, are still at the AR camps.

Mass graves are proven. By all normal standards of evidencing, they are proven.

I can point to them in the ground.

HansHill wrote: ↑Wed Feb 18, 2026 8:32 am

Archie wrote: ↑Tue Feb 17, 2026 11:38 pm
If we were to treat all probabilistic judgments as "fallacious" this would render scholarship essentially impossible.

Imagine this mode of thinking in literally any other circumstance.

Nessie at a job interview: “Just because you cannot work out why I am hireable doesn’t mean you should not hire me”

Nessie as a prosecution attorney: “ladies and gentlemen of the jury - Just because you cannot work out how the suspect committed the crime doesnt mean he is innocent”

Nessie as an architect instructing a team of civil engineers: “Just because you cannot work out how to construct this infrastructure safely and under budget doesn’t mean you should stop”

Nessie as runner up for Best Lead Performance at the Oscars: “Just because you cannot work out how I am the best actor doesn’t mean I don’t deserve my Oscar”

Nessie after losing 10 - 0 in the World Cup: “Just because you can’t work out how i scored 11 goals without anybody noticing doesn’t mean i lost the game”

Archie wrote: ↑Wed Feb 18, 2026 7:26 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Wed Feb 18, 2026 9:46 am Those words do indeed suggest it is possible the argument from incredulity is being used. Or, it is the expression of a reasoned doubt.

Just to be clear, do you think what I quoted is a fallacy? Or no?