The use of logical fallacies / Nessie craps out

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

Re: The use of logical fallacies

Postby hermod » 5 years 2 months ago (Fri Aug 22, 2014 3:24 pm)

Nessie. wrote:That there were gas chambers does not mean there were homicidal gassings is correct. Hence past claims have been changed and for example there are none at Dachau. So that is not a non sequitur.


The gassing claim about Dachau has changed once again, what should make you and everybody wonder how reliable the 'evidence' of Nazi homicidal gassings in general is.

hermod @ Survivor testimonies: "no credible evidence" for the USHMM

The six-million-dollar question is: How can the same kind of 'evidence' ('testimonies' & 'confessions') prove there were no homicidal gas chambers at Dachau and Buchenwald and also prove undeniably (as we're said on and on) there were homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz and Treblinka? Is this question a fallacy too?
"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
Nessie.
Member
Member
Posts: 52
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2014 1:52 pm

Re: The use of logical fallacies

Postby Nessie. » 5 years 2 months ago (Fri Aug 22, 2014 4:06 pm)

hermod wrote:
Nessie. wrote:That there were gas chambers does not mean there were homicidal gassings is correct. Hence past claims have been changed and for example there are none at Dachau. So that is not a non sequitur.


The gassing claim about Dachau has changed once again, what should make you and everybody wonder how reliable the 'evidence' of Nazi homicidal gassings in general is.

hermod @ Survivor testimonies: "no credible evidence" for the USHMM

The six-million-dollar question is: How can the same kind of 'evidence' ('testimonies' & 'confessions') prove there were no homicidal gas chambers at Dachau and Buchenwald and also prove undeniably (as we're said on and on) there were homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz and Treblinka? Is this question a fallacy too?


That the Dachau narrative has changed is because historians argue and disagree and the new work changes the narrative. History is subject to academic revision all the time.

Please go and watch some trials at court. You will hear and see witness who you think are lying through their teeth, whole you think are honest but have made a mistake and those who you will think are telling the truth. That is repeated in courts all over the world. The same is true for the Holocaust. Some lie, some make mistakes and some tell the truth. One way of deciding who is doing what is by examining their evidence against other evidence. When evidence is corroborated by witnesses not connected with them and/or physical evidence, then they are likely to be reliable.

Hence a lack of evidence for homicidal use of gas chambers at some camps and not others means some witnesses are discredited and others are not. .

User avatar
Nessie.
Member
Member
Posts: 52
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2014 1:52 pm

Re: The use of logical fallacies

Postby Nessie. » 5 years 2 months ago (Fri Aug 22, 2014 4:19 pm)

Bob wrote:
Nessie wrote:True, many are abusive. Where I say I can speak with a clear concious on this is that I have hardly ever indulged in such. I have also found that where I disagree with other believers that does not result in the abuse I get from denier/revisionists.


So true, fine.


We have argued before so you know me.


Bob wrote:
Nessie wrote:I do not see how your descriptive matches cherry picking. Have you got specific examples?


Holocaust story is itself based on cherry picking fallacy, is based on numerous bits of several accounts, for instance: some for introduction of killing agent, some for cremation, some for load of the oven etc. = hodge-podge holocaust story. And if there is some gap or problem, exterminationists simply replace it with own made up version claiming it was a mistake. When the accounts are compared in their complete length, they in fact contradicts each other, that´s why exterminationists love cherry picking fallacy while ignoring the inconvenient stuff, especially material evidence.


What was too hard to understand? Tauber is used for cremation times. Kula for description of so called Kula columns. Nyiszli for ventilation. Tauber for color of corpses etc. and contradictions between them are simply ignored, exterminationists simply pick up what suit their needs.


Cherry picking involves using only the evidence which confirms the hoped for outcome. So with regards to the above witnesses, what is ignored, what is cherry picked?


Bob wrote:
Nessie wrote:That there were gas chambers does not mean there were homicidal gassings is correct. Hence past claims have been changed and for example there are none at Dachau. So that is not a non sequitur. As for re-settlement in the east compared to Hitler order documentation, there is none for either, so we should look for other evidence. I have never claimed that because there are no re-settlement documents therefore there was no re-settlement. That is a strawman as is your descriptive of my supposed logic.


I did not say a word about Dachau, read again examples of non sequiturs in my comment: "For instance - there was a gassing cellar in Krematorium II = there must have been a homicidal gas chamber for murder. There were four crematoria in Birkenau = there must have been cremation of victims of mass murder. There is a smoke in the photo = there must have been cremation of victims of gassings. Classic non sequiturs" It was you who argued on skeptic forum that there was too large cremation capacity at Auschwitz hence it was meant for criminal purposes, mass cremation of murdered victims. Do you want to deny this non sequitur now or...?


I used Dachau to show how gassing cellar does not equal homicidal gassing as you claim as a non sequitur. Dachau is the evidence that the existence of a gas chamber does not mean exterminationists say there were homicidal gassings a a certain camp. Yes I argued there were too many facilities at Auschwitz for it just to be a camp. Other camps, like POW ones had none at all. They were built only where they expected lots of people to die, like Birkenau and not the POW camps. Hence not a non sequitur.


Bob wrote:Dachau is still changing its story, use search function on this forum or on Rodoh. You do not consider witness testimony (for instance Franz Blaha) as credible evidence. Good.


I do not know who Franz Blaha is, so you have made up that I consider him not credible, strawman. He may be, but that is for me to decide not you.

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

Re: The use of logical fallacies

Postby hermod » 5 years 2 months ago (Fri Aug 22, 2014 8:16 pm)

Nessie. wrote:That the Dachau narrative has changed is because historians argue and disagree and the new work changes the narrative. History is subject to academic revision all the time.


Academic revision, what is that? Is that a term for "concessions made by the Holocaust clergy and intended to save the Holo-myth as a whole from its own too blatant frauds"?


Please go and watch some trials at court. You will hear and see witness who you think are lying through their teeth, whole you think are honest but have made a mistake and those who you will think are telling the truth. That is repeated in courts all over the world. The same is true for the Holocaust. Some lie, some make mistakes and some tell the truth. One way of deciding who is doing what is by examining their evidence against other evidence. When evidence is corroborated by witnesses not connected with them and/or physical evidence, then they are likely to be reliable.

Hence a lack of evidence for homicidal use of gas chambers at some camps and not others means some witnesses are discredited and others are not. .


So how do you explain that the Dachau homicidal gas chamber has recently been 'revived'? New evidence? Of course not. But Holocaust propagandists have finally understood they must prevent people from understanding that if the 'evidence' for the Dachau homicidal gas chamber is just a pile of bullcrap, then the 'evidence' for the other alleged homicidal gas chambers is useless too.

You're funny with your Holo-testimonies corroborated by other Holo-testimonies. Most Holo-testimonies don't corrobate each other on crucial "details". Those inconsistencies are what Holocaust propagandists call "little mistakes" and pointing out those inconsistencies is what they call "deniers' hypercriticism". Did you know, for instance, that the 1st 'eye witness' who ever 'testified' about the Auschwitz homicidal gas chambers before a court, Sophia Litwinska, described "yellow fumes entering the room" as the murder weapon used in those alleged homicidal gas chambers? But I suppose that you'll tell me that being unable to discriminate yellow fumes and blue pellets poured through the roof are a "little mistake" and my "hypercriticism" proves nothing.

And you could probably find numerous 'testimonies' about the Belzec electrocution chambers and the Treblinka steam chambers corroborating each other.
"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

Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1093
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: The use of logical fallacies

Postby Werd » 5 years 2 months ago (Fri Aug 22, 2014 8:29 pm)

Okay, I am going to have to assume Nessie you believe the following since you refused to respond to my shorter post that came earlier.

1. Belzec had pits thirty meters deep.
2. Treblinka had pits thirty meters deep.
3. Corpses can turn yellow from CO poisoning based on certain available medical evidence.
4a. Wiernik told the truth about corpses turning yellow from CO poisoning.
4b. You still have dodged the yellow issue here.
Weirnick said yellow corpses? Correct Polish translations...
For all the evidence you have compiled about red allegedly occuring a minority of the time in CO poisoned corpses, you'd think they'd claim yellow in there if it was a possible colour. Isn't that interesting how the lack of frequent mention of red enables you to conclude red colouring happens very little. But yet yellow is not mentioned and you can't conclude that yellow does not occur. It must therefore be possible. Well why not organe or green or fusha? Oh I know. We have to believe yellow can occur because Wiernik says so, right? :lol: He lied and I think deep down you know it. You aren't fooling me with your justified, middle ground skepticism. "I don't know why he lied," or "maybe yellow is possible - we just need to look harder in the medical literature."

In a post I composed that was later taken off because it was deemed repetative, which it admittedly was, since you love to take us in circles here and we fall for it, you once said something to the effect of, "oh thirty meter deep pits was just a mistake," but you never explained how such a mistake could be made. Do you know Polish very well or something? Is there a number from 0-30 that would be a reasonable depth of a pit in Trebinka and/or Belzec that also sounds like thirty? And it was mixed up when someone relayed the information vocally to the person who first wrote it down? How did the Polish Underground who authored these reports fuck up twice, once for each camp Belzec and Treblinka? Only a linguist can explain it. Why are you hiding your expertise in Polish from us if you are indeed an expert that can prove an easy mistake was made in saying thirty instead of an outright lie? Simply saying it was a mistake and walking away without giving content to your concept is a dodge, Nessie. So when you get banned from codoh for continuing to dodge like this, don't go running back to rodoh claiming to have been crucified for stumping the revisionists or something. That won't work. It will be because you refused to meet me head on after I put you in your place (after many others more knowledgeable than I have done so to you).

Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1093
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: The use of logical fallacies

Postby Werd » 5 years 2 months ago (Sat Aug 23, 2014 1:25 am)

1-39 in Polish.

0 zero
1 jeden
2 dwa
3 trzy
4 cztery
5 piec
6 szesc
7 siedem
8 osiem
9 dziewiec

10 dziesiec
11 jedenascie
12 dwanascie
13 trzynascie
14 czternascie
15 pietnascie
16 szesnascie
17 siedemnascie
18 osiemnascie
19 dziewietnascie

20 dwadziescia
21 dwadziesciajeden
22 dwadziesciadwa
23 dwadziesciatrzy
24 dwadziesciacztery
25 dwadziesciapiec
26 dwadziesciaszesc
27 dwadziesciasiedem
28 dwadziesciaosiem
29 dwadziesciadziewiec

30 trzydzìesci
31 trzydzìescijeden
32 trzydzìescidwa
33 trzydzìescitrzy
34 trzydzìescicztery
35 trzydzìescipiec
36 trzydzìesciszesc
37 trzydzìescisiedem
38 trzydzìesciosiem
39 trzydzìescidziewiec

The only one that comes close to 30 trzydzìesci is 13 trzynascie. In english, 30 and 13 sound very close. But do they in Polish? Let's hear.

How to count in Polish from 11 to 20
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgrIYsSBmnI
Pause at 0:03 and then let it go to hear "13."

How to count from 20 to 30 in Polish
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ur-PGg6O5JY
Pause at 0:19 to hear "30."

The Polish 13 and 30 sounds further apart than the English 13 and 30 sound compared to each other. Who here agrees with me? Who hears what I hear? If they hear what I hear, then it's obvious that one can't mistake 13 for 30 in Polish like one could in English. So Nessie's theory about a "mistake" about the reports saying pits were 30 meters deep therefore is impossible and illogical. It would be absurd for a Polish man to get a secret report from a German guard about mass murder in Belzec, put his thoughts into Polish and then speak them only to be misunderstood. At the end of the day, pits even 13 meters deep would have been impossible.

This means that Nessie should probably give up this whole nonsense about this Polish report being an honest 'mistake' or 'accident' instead of outright atrocity lies since no Polish number that would be a reasonable depth of a grave pit sounds even close to thirty.

Excavators at Belzec

User avatar
borjastick
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2514
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:52 am
Location: Europe

Re: The use of logical fallacies

Postby borjastick » 5 years 2 months ago (Sat Aug 23, 2014 1:52 am)

History is subject to academic revision all the time.
- Nessie

Aha the Nick Terry school of historical revisionism. In other words historical revisionism is perfectly acceptable as long as a) it's only done by accredited academics within the system and b) it suits the extermination narrative.

This is a plot to ignore anyone who doesn't tow the line and isn't controlled by academia. Thus for example the exterminationists always dismiss Leuchter and Rudolph.

It's the old old 'our evidence is better than yours and so we won't even discuss yours.'
'Of the four million Jews under Nazi control in WW2, six million died and alas only five million survived.'

'We don't need evidence, we have survivors' - israeli politician

Bob
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2012 5:49 am

Re: The use of logical fallacies

Postby Bob » 5 years 2 months ago (Sat Aug 23, 2014 4:30 am)

Nessie wrote:We have argued before so you know me.


Yes, i already know who you are.

Nessie wrote:Cherry picking involves using only the evidence which confirms the hoped for outcome. So with regards to the above witnesses, what is ignored, what is cherry picked?


Cherry picking already provided, hence here are contradictions:

Tauber contradicted by Kula regarding the appearance of the corpses. Kula contradicted by Tauber regarding the appearance of the Kula columns. Tauber and Nyiszli contradicted by the aerial photo/physical evidence regarding position of columns. Nyiszli contradicted by Tauber regarding position of columns. And so on.

Nessie wrote:I used Dachau to show how gassing cellar does not equal homicidal gassing as you claim as a non sequitur. Dachau is the evidence that the existence of a gas chamber does not mean exterminationists say there were homicidal gassings a a certain camp. Yes I argued there were too many facilities at Auschwitz for it just to be a camp. Other camps, like POW ones had none at all. They were built only where they expected lots of people to die, like Birkenau and not the POW camps. Hence not a non sequitur.


So again - I did not say a word about Dachau being non sequitur, hence your classic strawman, another popular fallacy in our list. "Gassing cellar equal to homicidal gas chamber" is exterminationists´nonsense, non sequitur in the case of Krematorium II. I clearly provided examples of non sequiturs, so here again and for the last time and be sure to finally read it, this is not Rodoh, but Codoh with guidelines: "For instance - there was a gassing cellar in Krematorium II = there must have been a homicidal gas chamber for murder. There were four crematoria in Birkenau = there must have been cremation of victims of mass murder. There is a smoke in the photo = there must have been cremation of victims of gassings."

Do you see something about Dachau? No, regarding Dachau and its still changing version see other threads.

The rest is quite incoherent, but it looks like an admission that you admit you were the one who produced that non sequitur how is cremation capacity allegedly too large to be innocent only because you reach conclusions not supported by premise and you are ignorant and apply personal incredulity. Thanks for this admission,

Nessie said: "Other camps, like POW ones had none at all.....like Birkenau and not the POW camps. " - unfortunately for you, Birkenau was a POW camp! :lol: Extra for you, "KGL" stands for "Kriegsgefangenenlagers" hence a camp for prisoners of war, that´s how was Birkenau camp called in the documents.

Nessie said: "They were built only where they expected lots of people to die" - exactly, they expected it at Auschwitz-Birkenau after previous experiences, but fortunately, because typhus was later "under control" and because of population which never met high projected figures - people were not dying as expected.

Nessie wrote:I do not know who Franz Blaha is, so you have made up that I consider him not credible, strawman. He may be, but that is for me to decide not you.


Is it not my problem you lack basic knowledge of the subject, hence my only mistake was an assumption you are at least basically educated and know the famous witness of Dachau homicidal gassings. Your accusation of strawman is hence false, again. But you are not even basically educated despite challenging you to do it more than two years ago when I already educated you about other basic things (Nessie did not know what is claimed to be gas chambers at Auschwitz, their location in crematoria etc.).

Now you know Franz Blaha (p. 172), so tell us your position regarding Dachau.

Do your opponents a favor, go and educate yourself about the basic knowledge of the subject before joining debates where is at least a basic level of knowledge required.

User avatar
borjastick
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2514
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:52 am
Location: Europe

Re: The use of logical fallacies

Postby borjastick » 5 years 2 months ago (Sat Aug 23, 2014 6:07 am)

Bob whilst I agree with your points above and your fresh thinking on things I don't agree with having a go at forum members who are not experts in every aspect and sphere of the holocaust. It's a massive subject and in my experience people tend to choose one or two specific areas to study and understand in depth.

That Nessie seems to not know much about the detail of Dachau isn't a surprise, not many do. We can't all be like Hannover or perhaps hermod who seem to have access to volumes of data, quotes and reference material such as newspaper articles.

In my case I have read many books on the subject and read as much online as my time permits but I am still learning and do not describe myself as a holocaust expert, far from it.
'Of the four million Jews under Nazi control in WW2, six million died and alas only five million survived.'

'We don't need evidence, we have survivors' - israeli politician

Bob
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2012 5:49 am

Re: The use of logical fallacies

Postby Bob » 5 years 2 months ago (Sat Aug 23, 2014 9:59 am)

Borjastick, I understand your point, but Nessie is not a newbie, It had been more than two years since I firstly educated him about basic things and I was very patient, since then I recommended to him several times to at least read basic stuff about the subject. You know, these people even do not need to spend hours in library, because other people did the great job and lot of stuff is online. Why he didn´t simply googled that name?

Last but not least, Nessie is of course lying, here you can see he knows very well who is Franz Blaha, here is Nessie´s own post from Rodoh posted a few months ago (my emphasis):

Nessie wrote:"I believe there may have been some gassings there

http://www.nizkor.org/features/qar/qar04.html (new window)

"The question of whether the gas chamber can be proved to have been used has not been definitively answered. Some historians say that there is no question: it was never used. Some say that the question is still open. It comes down to two testimonies: that of a British officer named Payne-Best who says he heard Dr. Rascher speak of gassings, and that of Dr. Franz Blaha, who testified under oath to experimental gassings. For more information, see Kogon et al., op. cit., pp. 202-204, and Blaha's testimony in Trial of the Major War Criminals, 1947, vol. V, pp. 167-199. Dr. Charles Larson, a forensics expert, also examined gassing victims at the camp, saying "only relatively few of the inmates I personally examined at Dachau were murdered in this manner."


And now, several hours ago, he claimed:

Nessie wrote:That there were gas chambers does not mean there were homicidal gassings is correct. Hence past claims have been changed and for example there are none at Dachau.

I do not know who Franz Blaha is, so you have made up that I consider him not credible, strawman. He may be, but that is for me to decide not you.


What do you have to say about this issue now Borjastick? Do you still think I am "having a go" at poor Nessie? This liar even accused me of strawman.

You can believe me that when I am "having a go" at Nessie, it must have been something behind it (i.e. - previous debates) because I am of course very patient with people who lack knowledge, but when it comes to liars and lazybones, then I am not very patient.

User avatar
Nessie.
Member
Member
Posts: 52
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2014 1:52 pm

Re: The use of logical fallacies

Postby Nessie. » 5 years 2 months ago (Sat Aug 23, 2014 1:28 pm)

Bob wrote:.....

Nessie wrote:Cherry picking involves using only the evidence which confirms the hoped for outcome. So with regards to the above witnesses, what is ignored, what is cherry picked?


Cherry picking already provided, hence here are contradictions:

Tauber contradicted by Kula regarding the appearance of the corpses. Kula contradicted by Tauber regarding the appearance of the Kula columns. Tauber and Nyiszli contradicted by the aerial photo/physical evidence regarding position of columns. Nyiszli contradicted by Tauber regarding position of columns. And so on.


That is contradictory evidence given by witnesses. That is not what the fallacy of cherry picking involves. Cherry picking would mean that evidence which does not suit is suppressed or ignored. The contradictions are not suppressed or ignored. They are well known and argued over.

Bob wrote:
Nessie wrote:I used Dachau to show how gassing cellar does not equal homicidal gassing as you claim as a non sequitur. Dachau is the evidence that the existence of a gas chamber does not mean exterminationists say there were homicidal gassings a a certain camp. Yes I argued there were too many facilities at Auschwitz for it just to be a camp. Other camps, like POW ones had none at all. They were built only where they expected lots of people to die, like Birkenau and not the POW camps. Hence not a non sequitur.


So again - I did not say a word about Dachau being non sequitur, hence your classic strawman, another popular fallacy in our list. "Gassing cellar equal to homicidal gas chamber" is exterminationists´nonsense, non sequitur in the case of Krematorium II. I clearly provided examples of non sequiturs, so here again and for the last time and be sure to finally read it, this is not Rodoh, but Codoh with guidelines: "For instance - there was a gassing cellar in Krematorium II = there must have been a homicidal gas chamber for murder. There were four crematoria in Birkenau = there must have been cremation of victims of mass murder. There is a smoke in the photo = there must have been cremation of victims of gassings."

Do you see something about Dachau? No, regarding Dachau and its still changing version see other threads.


Again it is me using Dachau as an example, not you. I am showing how your claim of gas chamber = homicidal gassing is not true. It is not the best example since there are some claims it was used. There are other camps in Germany which were proclaimed to have homicidal gas chambers at the end of the war which have since been disregarded. The claims about Krema II and the crematoria are not non sequiturs as I say they are proved. I can understand why you say they are non sequiturs. The faked photo of smoke is a non sequitur.

Bob wrote:The rest is quite incoherent, but it looks like an admission that you admit you were the one who produced that non sequitur how is cremation capacity allegedly too large to be innocent only because you reach conclusions not supported by premise and you are ignorant and apply personal incredulity. Thanks for this admission,


That is incoherent.

Bob wrote:Nessie said: "Other camps, like POW ones had none at all.....like Birkenau and not the POW camps. " - unfortunately for you, Birkenau was a POW camp! :lol: Extra for you, "KGL" stands for "Kriegsgefangenenlagers" hence a camp for prisoners of war, that´s how was Birkenau camp called in the documents.

Nessie said: "They were built only where they expected lots of people to die" - exactly, they expected it at Auschwitz-Birkenau after previous experiences, but fortunately, because typhus was later "under control" and because of population which never met high projected figures - people were not dying as expected.


There were POW camps as part of the Auschwitz camp complex, Birkenau was not one of them. It contained civilians not soldiers.

Bob wrote:
Nessie wrote:I do not know who Franz Blaha is, so you have made up that I consider him not credible, strawman. He may be, but that is for me to decide not you.


Is it not my problem you lack basic knowledge of the subject, hence my only mistake was an assumption you are at least basically educated and know the famous witness of Dachau homicidal gassings. Your accusation of strawman is hence false, again. But you are not even basically educated despite challenging you to do it more than two years ago when I already educated you about other basic things (Nessie did not know what is claimed to be gas chambers at Auschwitz, their location in crematoria etc.).

Now you know Franz Blaha (p. 172), so tell us your position regarding Dachau.

Do your opponents a favor, go and educate yourself about the basic knowledge of the subject before joining debates where is at least a basic level of knowledge required.


I am sorry my knowledge of detail is not as good as yours. Here I am doing what others do and develop knowledge in particular topics. here it is the excessive use of fallacies by denier/revisionists.

User avatar
Nessie.
Member
Member
Posts: 52
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2014 1:52 pm

Re: The use of logical fallacies

Postby Nessie. » 5 years 2 months ago (Sat Aug 23, 2014 1:31 pm)

Bob wrote:Borjastick, I understand your point, but Nessie is not a newbie, It had been more than two years since I firstly educated him about basic things and I was very patient, since then I recommended to him several times to at least read basic stuff about the subject. You know, these people even do not need to spend hours in library, because other people did the great job and lot of stuff is online. Why he didn´t simply googled that name?

Last but not least, Nessie is of course lying, here you can see he knows very well who is Franz Blaha, here is Nessie´s own post from Rodoh posted a few months ago (my emphasis):

Nessie wrote:"I believe there may have been some gassings there

http://www.nizkor.org/features/qar/qar04.html (new window)

"The question of whether the gas chamber can be proved to have been used has not been definitively answered. Some historians say that there is no question: it was never used. Some say that the question is still open. It comes down to two testimonies: that of a British officer named Payne-Best who says he heard Dr. Rascher speak of gassings, and that of Dr. Franz Blaha, who testified under oath to experimental gassings. For more information, see Kogon et al., op. cit., pp. 202-204, and Blaha's testimony in Trial of the Major War Criminals, 1947, vol. V, pp. 167-199. Dr. Charles Larson, a forensics expert, also examined gassing victims at the camp, saying "only relatively few of the inmates I personally examined at Dachau were murdered in this manner."


And now, several hours ago, he claimed:

Nessie wrote:That there were gas chambers does not mean there were homicidal gassings is correct. Hence past claims have been changed and for example there are none at Dachau.

I do not know who Franz Blaha is, so you have made up that I consider him not credible, strawman. He may be, but that is for me to decide not you.


What do you have to say about this issue now Borjastick? Do you still think I am "having a go" at poor Nessie? This liar even accused me of strawman.

You can believe me that when I am "having a go" at Nessie, it must have been something behind it (i.e. - previous debates) because I am of course very patient with people who lack knowledge, but when it comes to liars and lazybones, then I am not very patient.


Sorry, one quote from containing his name does not mean I have knowledge of him. I do have some now after your previous request.

Bob
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2012 5:49 am

Re: The use of logical fallacies

Postby Bob » 5 years 2 months ago (Sat Aug 23, 2014 4:05 pm)

Nessie wrote:That is contradictory evidence given by witnesses. That is not what the fallacy of cherry picking involves. Cherry picking would mean that evidence which does not suit is suppressed or ignored. The contradictions are not suppressed or ignored. They are well known and argued over.


They are known and suppressed or ignored by exterminationists who cherry pick from their testimonies what suit them = cherry picking. Revisionists are those who discuss them and bring them to readers.

Nessie wrote:Again it is me using Dachau as an example, not you. I am showing how your claim of gas chamber = homicidal gassing is not true. It is not the best example since there are some claims it was used. There are other camps in Germany which were proclaimed to have homicidal gas chambers at the end of the war which have since been disregarded. The claims about Krema II and the crematoria are not non sequiturs as I say they are proved. I can understand why you say they are non sequiturs. The faked photo of smoke is a non sequitur.


"I am showing how your claim of gas chamber = homicidal gassing is not true." - let see what I actually used as example of non sequitur: "For instance - there was a gassing cellar in Krematorium II = there must have been a homicidal gas chamber for murder." - I referred specifically to Krematorium II at Auschwitz, a well known "Vergasungskeller" issue. Nessie made up a claim and attributed it to me - strawman. Actually, all his responses to my examples of non sequiturs are examples of strawman, he all the time for some mysterious reason speaks about alleged non sequitur at Dachau - but nobody here said anything about it. Unable to argue with my real points, he simply made this up and attacks own strawman.


Proved? Because you say so or because of arguments? Feel free to share them in separated thread, until then = nothing proved, quite the contrary, there is nothing criminal about gassing cellar.

That is incoherent.


Thanks for agreeing with my observation.

Nessie wrote:There were POW camps as part of the Auschwitz camp complex, Birkenau was not one of them. It contained civilians not soldiers.


Birkenau was a POW camp as stated in the documents, do not make things up and finally read basic literature on the subject. Birkenau was constructed and planned to be full of PoWs, during that time they planned and started construction of crematoria, period. Later changes (plan never accomplished) are irrelevant, crematoria already existed and Germans did not posses an ability to see to the future.

Nessie wrote:I am sorry my knowledge of detail is not as good as yours. Here I am doing what others do and develop knowledge in particular topics. here it is the excessive use of fallacies by denier/revisionists.

Sorry, one quote from containing his name does not mean I have knowledge of him. I do have some now after your previous request.


Sorry, you not only spoke about him in your comment, you had even links to nizkor + reference for his testimony. If you want to claim that you simply copy pasted text and link you even did not bother to read in order to not be called a liar, then I will call you a dilettante. Take your pick. Anyway, contradiction remains.

Let´s add another issue:
Leaving aside their numerous logical fallacies amply demonstrated here by Nessie, another big problem with exterminationists is that they simply ignore what is written to them, and they simply write the same stuff over and over again as if nothing has happened. This results in never ending circle of repetitions in which all relevant issue will be lost sooner or later. The only thing I do not know is if this is a deliberate debating strategy or not.

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

Re: The use of logical fallacies

Postby hermod » 5 years 2 months ago (Sat Aug 23, 2014 5:37 pm)

Werd wrote:The only one that comes close to 30 trzydzìesci is 13 trzynascie. In english, 30 and 13 sound very close. But do they in Polish? Let's hear.

How to count in Polish from 11 to 20
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgrIYsSBmnI
Pause at 0:03 and then let it go to hear "13."

How to count from 20 to 30 in Polish
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ur-PGg6O5JY
Pause at 0:19 to hear "30."

The Polish 13 and 30 sounds further apart than the English 13 and 30 sound compared to each other. Who here agrees with me? Who hears what I hear? If they hear what I hear, then it's obvious that one can't mistake 13 for 30 in Polish like one could in English. So Nessie's theory about a "mistake" about the reports saying pits were 30 meters deep therefore is impossible and illogical. It would be absurd for a Polish man to get a secret report from a German guard about mass murder in Belzec, put his thoughts into Polish and then speak them only to be misunderstood. At the end of the day, pits even 13 meters deep would have been impossible.

This means that Nessie should probably give up this whole nonsense about this Polish report being an honest 'mistake' or 'accident' instead of outright atrocity lies since no Polish number that would be a reasonable depth of a grave pit sounds even close to thirty.

Excavators at Belzec


I agree with you, Werd. I hear what you hear. No way somebody can confuse 13 and 30 in Polish.

(Also true in some other languages. Nobody can confuse 13 (treize) and 30 (trente) in French for instance.)
"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

Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1093
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: The use of logical fallacies

Postby Werd » 5 years 2 months ago (Sat Aug 23, 2014 5:39 pm)

And when it comes to deciding whether or not reports about what went on in the Aktion Reinhardt camps are accurate or not, Nessie clearly cherry picks himself and pretends that absurd atrocity tales do not exist, or if they do, they are the result of an honest accident that can be successfully explained away to placate the revisionists who have inquiries. To admit otherwise, the existence of outright atrocity lies, would be to admit lies have taken place and therefore one has an epistemic duty to continue further research in an attempt to seperate the nonsense from the rest. And once that happens, revisonism is justifed on scientific grounds as opposed to being just blind Jew hatred for the sake of Jew hatred. And the gas chamber mongers simply can't have revisionism being justified on scientific grounds.


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] and 10 guests