Michael Shermer's Baloney Detector

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
Kingfisher
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1673
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:55 pm

Michael Shermer's Baloney Detector

Postby Kingfisher » 6 years 2 days ago (Sun Aug 18, 2013 6:07 am)


Michael Shermer, the credulous sceptic, is well known to people here as an opponent of Holocaust Revisionism. Yet it seemed to me that as you go through the 10 points here in his Baloney Detector Kit, every one applies much more clearly to belief in the standard Holocaust line than to criticism of it.

Anyone care to take them one by one?

User avatar
Dresden
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1411
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 5:38 pm

Re: Michael Shermer's Baloney Detector

Postby Dresden » 6 years 1 day ago (Sun Aug 18, 2013 12:34 pm)

Good post, Kingfisher!

Michael Shermer is indeed a credulous "skeptic"; although I would say "Michael Shermer the Gullible Skeptic"; it means the same thing, I just think it sounds more fitting.

Here are the ten points of Michael Shermer's "Baloney Detector":


1. How reliable is the source of the claim?

2. Does the source make similar claims?

3. Have the claims been verified by somebody else?

4. Does this fit with the way the world works?

5. Has anyone tried to disprove the claim?

6. Where does the preponderance of evidence point?

7. Is the claimant playing by the rules?

8. Is the claimant providing positive evidence?

9. Does the new theory account for as many phenomena as the old theory?

10. Are personal beliefs driving the claim?

".....as you go through the 10 points here in his Baloney Detector Kit, every one applies much more clearly to belief in the standard Holocaust line than to criticism of it"

Yes, and some of them blatantly so.

1. How reliable is the source of the claim?

Tortured confessions, faked photos, etc.

4. Does this fit with the way the world works?

:lol: :D
Maybe, just maybe, they believe what they are telling you about the 'holocaust', but maybe, just maybe, their contempt for your intelligence and your character is beyond anything you could ever have imagined. -- Bradley Smith

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3309
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: Michael Shermer's Baloney Detector

Postby Hektor » 6 years 1 day ago (Sun Aug 18, 2013 1:53 pm)

Michael Shermer is only skeptical, when it comes to views that deviate from the main-stream / establishment line. When it comes to being skeptical about something the establishment, I wouldn't recall any example where he would even question that.

Michael Shermer calling himself a skeptic is like an orthodox Catholic during the the Inquisition calling himself a skeptic. It's absurd and ridiculous.

User avatar
Cloud
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 271
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 7:27 pm
Location: The Land of Political Correctness

Re: Michael Shermer's Baloney Detector

Postby Cloud » 6 years 1 day ago (Sun Aug 18, 2013 3:34 pm)

What about claims like "the Holocaust is a hoax" or "the jews made up the holocaust to steal a piece of land from the Arabs?" Do those claims pass the ten point Baloney Test?

User avatar
Balsamo
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 305
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 1:44 pm

Re: Michael Shermer's Baloney Detector

Postby Balsamo » 6 years 1 day ago (Sun Aug 18, 2013 6:47 pm)

Hum... most of those points are well known as "Methode historique" or historical criticism...nothing new there....

User avatar
Kingfisher
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1673
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:55 pm

Re: Michael Shermer's Baloney Detector

Postby Kingfisher » 6 years 1 day ago (Mon Aug 19, 2013 7:00 am)

Balsamo wrote:Hum... most of those points are well known as "Methode historique" or historical criticism...nothing new there....

No one is suggesting they are new, and I don't think Shermer does, either.

The point is that, to me, they are all more supportive of the Revisionist approach in its academic manifestations, not some of the wilder propagandists) than it is of the conventional Holocaust narrative.

User avatar
Kingfisher
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1673
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:55 pm

Re: Michael Shermer's Baloney Detector

Postby Kingfisher » 6 years 1 day ago (Mon Aug 19, 2013 7:08 am)

Cloud wrote:What about claims like "the Holocaust is a hoax" or "the jews made up the holocaust to steal a piece of land from the Arabs?" Do those claims pass the ten point Baloney Test?

To me no, they don't. They are gross simplifications of a complicated issue, and have the effect of driving away potential revisionists. I don't think you will find great support for them from scholarly revisionists (with the exception perhaps of Fritz Berg, who is scholarly within his own specialist areas but polemic outside them). True, Graf has used the word "hoax" but in the sense of a propaganda hoax. The word is fraught with issues of meaning, but let's not go into it here as we have had threads on the topic previously.

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3309
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: Michael Shermer's Baloney Detector

Postby Hektor » 6 years 1 day ago (Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:07 am)

Holocaust is a major accusation, so the burden of proof is on the Holocaust accusers, not on those questioning the validity of the accusation. But we can do a test run on Holocaust Revisionism, if you don't mind:
1. How reliable is the source of the claim?
Revisionists mainly use sources were there is general agreement on that they are authentic. The difference is often in interpretation.
2. Does the source make similar claims?
There have been various atrocity propaganda hoaxes made against the Germans, and they've been debunked or retracted.
3. Have the claims been verified by somebody else?
Revisionist frequently assess each others work and that opportunity was there for their opponents as well. They do rather poorly on that.
4. Does this fit with the way the world works?
That's the whole point of Revisionism, the gassing claims don't fit the way the world works.
5. Has anyone tried to disprove the claim?
Giving testable and elaborate proof for the mass gassing allegations in Auschwitz would falsify Holocaust Revisionism. This is not done by the Holocaust proponents, not remotely. But I guess they tried.
6. Where does the preponderance of evidence point?
That millions of Jews survived the second world war and emigrated to Palestina, America, South Africa, Australia and/or get compensation money from the Germans.
7. Is the claimant playing by the rules?
Generally the scientific method is followed in Revisionist works.
8. Is the claimant providing positive evidence?
Yes, forensic investigations, documents and artifacts that show there was no extermination attempt, testimony that points in that direction, etc.
9. Does the new theory account for as many phenomena as the old theory?
Yes, it especially accounts for the phenomena of so many Jews claiming compensation.
10. Are personal beliefs driving the claim?
Revisionists do have a variety of personal beliefs and in some cases that may be a motivation for them. This is however almost always the case for the proponents.

User avatar
Kingfisher
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1673
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:55 pm

Re: Michael Shermer's Baloney Detector

Postby Kingfisher » 6 years 19 hours ago (Mon Aug 19, 2013 1:11 pm)

Good analysis, Hektor.

User avatar
Inquisitor
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 442
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 4:40 am

Re: Michael Shermer's Baloney Detector

Postby Inquisitor » 5 years 11 months ago (Fri Aug 23, 2013 8:49 pm)

I've always found Shermer, the great "skeptic," and his "convergence of evidence" business to be a particularly ironic spokesman for the Exterminationists. If anything, the only place an objective study of the available evidence would lead a person is to the Revisionist side - not the other way around! It is the evidence - or the shocking lack thereof in many respects, that make it clear to any thinking person that at the absolute least, the official narrative is utterly implausible if not simply impossible all around.

Like others have noted - he seems to have zero skepticism regarding the "official" tale...how odd!

User avatar
hermod
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2076
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:52 am

Re: Michael Shermer's Baloney Detector

Postby hermod » 5 years 11 months ago (Sat Aug 24, 2013 10:14 pm)

Image
N°1 Holocaust [exterminationist] expert Raul Hilberg, Zundel trial, 1985

"there was a Holocaust, which is, by the way, more easily said than demonstrated." - Raul Hilberg, Is There a New Anti-Semitism? A Conversation with Raul Hilberg, Logos Journal. Volume 6 - Issue one-two (http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_6.1-2/hilberg.htm), 2007, soon before dying and after studying 'the Holocaust' for decades.

"Ninety-nine per cent of what we know [about Auschwitz] we do not actually have the physical evidence to prove . . . it has become part of our inherited knowledge." - Auschwitz [exterminationist] expert Robert Van Pelt, A Case for Letting Nature Take Back Auschwitz, The Toronto Star - December 27, 2009 (http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/art ... -auschwitz)

it is necessary to recognize that the lack of traces involves the inability to directly establish the reality of the existence of [Nazi] homicidal gas chambers.” - French historian jacques Baynac (http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blog ... dence.html)

"The archives torn from the bowels of the Third Reich, the depostions and accounts of its chiefs permit us to reconstruct in their least detail the birth and the development of its plans for aggression*, its military campaigns, and the whole range of processes by which the Nazis intended to reshape the world to their pattern. Only the campaign to exterminate the Jews, as concerns its completion, as well as in many other essential aspects, remains steeped in fog. Psychological inferences and considerations, third- or fourth-hand accounts, allow us to reconstruct the developments with a considerable verisimilitude. Certain details, nevertheless, will remain unknown forever. As concerns the concept proper of the plan for total extermination, the three or four principal actors are dead. No document remains, and has perhaps never existed." - Holocaust [exterminationist] historian Leon Poliakov, Breviaire de la haine (Breviary of Hate) , Paris, 1979, p. 134.

(* Most of those documents were forged documents like the Hossbach Protocol - The Hossbach Protocol and Hitler's bellicose intentions - and documents made by some of the numerous opponents to Nazism who were in the WW2 German armies, especially among the Junker officers, in order to please their Allied captors and save their own skins.)

Shermer's example about UFO believers saying "the evidence exists but our governement is concealing it" made me think about Van Pelt's answer to Faurisson's "No Holes, no Holocaust".

Today, these four small holes that connected the wire-mesh columns and the chimneys cannot be observed in the ruined remains of the concrete slab. Yet does this mean they were never there? We know that after the cessation of the gassings in the fall of 1944 all the gassing equipment was removed, which implies both the wire-mesh columns and the chimneys. What would have remained would have been the four narrow holes and the slab. While there is no certainty in this particular matter, it would have been logical to attach at the location where the columns had been some formwork at the bottom of the gas chamber ceiling, and pour some concrete in the hole and thus restore the slab. ” – Source: [Robert Van Pelt, expert report, page 518; see too trial transcript, Day 9, January 25, page 187.] (http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/docs/con ... tract.html)

Really, Prof Van Pelt? But I can see very clearly that sealed ventilation hole in Auschwitz Krema I (see the picture below). So why can't I, as well as you, find and see the allegedly sealed "introduction holes" in the roof of the Birkenau ruined 'gas chambers'? I am at a loss, as much as your colleague Raul Hilberg was when he was asked for any scientific report proving Nazi homicidal gas chambers existed during WW2... :wink:

Image
(Source: http://codoh.com/library/chapter/1833 - Fig. 26)

No good reasons for being skeptical about 'the Holocaust'? Isn't your Baloney Detector about to explode every time a 'Holocaust survivor' opens his/her mouth, Mr Shermer? :)
"But, however the world pretends to divide itself, there are ony two divisions in the world to-day - human beings and Germans. – Rudyard Kipling, The Morning Post (London), June 22, 1915

User avatar
hermod
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2076
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:52 am

Re: Michael Shermer's Baloney Detector

Postby hermod » 5 years 11 months ago (Tue Sep 17, 2013 5:01 am)

"But, however the world pretends to divide itself, there are ony two divisions in the world to-day - human beings and Germans. – Rudyard Kipling, The Morning Post (London), June 22, 1915

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3309
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: Michael Shermer's Baloney Detector

Postby Hektor » 5 years 11 months ago (Thu Sep 19, 2013 4:22 pm)

Inquisitor wrote:....
Like others have noted - he seems to have zero skepticism regarding the "official" tale...how odd!

The common denominator is that he does due that with virtually every issue he picks on:
- Concerning UFO, Aliens, etc. He's on the governments side.
- With anything paranormal, he's on the main stream side.
- On Creation, Evolution and Intelligent Design he's on the mainstream, government approved side.
- Holocaust, again what main stream historians approve and is enforced by governments.
- 9/11, you guessed it, governments side.

And it's not only that he is more or less on the governments/main stream side. He supports that 100% all the time, giving no benefits, legitimacy to the real skeptics whatsoever!


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests